European Judicial Training Best Practices in Training 2014

Tender JUST/2012/JUTR/PR/0064/A4
Implementation of the Pilot

Project
European Judicial Training
Lot 1
Study on Best Practices in training
of judges and prosecutors
Final report
Funded by the European Union
Page 1 of 247
Implementation of the Pilot Project European Judicial Training - Lot 1

Study on Best Practices in training of judges and prosecutors
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Justice
Directorate B Criminal Justice
Unit B.2 Criminal Law
Contact: Heiko WAGNER
E-mail: just-judicial-training@ec.europa.eu
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
Tender JUST/2012/JUTR/PR/0064/A4
Implementation of the Pilot Project
Lot 1
Study on Best Practices in training
of judges and prosecutors
Final report
Directorate-General for Directorate General for Justice

April 2014
EUR 904 EN
Page 1 of 247
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone
boxes or hotels may charge you).
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014
European Commission
FINAL REPORT Tender JUST/2012/JUTR/PR/0064/A4
Lot 1 Study on Best Practices in training of judges and prosecutors
ISBN : 978-92-79-39849-0
Doi : 10.2838/31516
European Union, 2014
April 2014
Page 2 of 247

Table of contents
Methodology of the study................................................................................. 7

Recommendations of the study......................................................................... 8
Rsum
................................................................................................................................... 10
Mthodologie de ltude ................................................................................. 10

Recommandations de ltude .......................................................................... 11
Part one ................................................................................... 13
Chapter one: background to report
......................................................................... 13
1.1. Background ........................................................................................... 13

1.2 Objectives and deliverables of the project .................................................. 14
1.4. The role of the project chief executive officer (CEO) ................................... 17
Chapter two: defining best practice and the framework for achieving
best practice
Chapter three: methodology for the study
Chapter four: Training needs assessment
........................................................................................................................ 17
.......................................................... 23
............................................................ 31
4.3 Specific sources and methods for TNA........................................................ 32

4.4 TNA at the organisational level.................................................................. 34
4.5 TNA at the functional level........................................................................ 37
4.6 TNA at the individual level ........................................................................ 38
Chapter five: innovative curricula or training plan in any given area
... 42
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 42

5.2 Main themes identified in the area of innovative curricula or training plans ..... 42
5.3 Protecting categories of training needs once identified ................................. 43
5.4 Combining different disciplines in the training of judges ............................... 45
5.5 Simulations and role play programmes ...................................................... 50
5.6 Leadership and management training ........................................................ 53
5.7 Comprehensive packages for delivering large-scale training on new legislative
programmes ................................................................................................ 59
5.8 Joint delivery of training programmes with external partners ........................ 62
5.9 Training workplace mentors ...................................................................... 65
Chapter six: innovative training methodology
................................................... 67
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 67

6.2 Using modern technology-based tools for training ....................................... 67
6.3 Note on training the trainers: A selection methodology ................................ 75
6.4 Complementary decentralised training to reflect local training needs and issues
.................................................................................................................. 77
April 2014
Page 3 of 247

6.5 Special methodologies devised to facilitate learning in different types of groups
.................................................................................................................. 78
6.6 Close monitoring of communication skills ................................................... 84
Chapter seven: implementation of training tools to favour the correct

application of EU law and international judicial co-operation
................... 87
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 87

7.2 Main themes identified in the area of training tools on EU law and international
judicial co-operation...................................................................................... 88
7.3. Best, good and promising practices in the implementation of training tools to
favour the correct application of EU law and international judicial co-operation ..... 91
Chapter eight: assessment of participants performance in training and

the effect of the training activities
........................................................................ 104
8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 104

8.2 Evaluation of judicial training ................................................................... 106
8.3 Judicial training: Kirkpatricks levels 1 and 2 evaluation .............................. 106
8.4 Judicial training: Kirkpatricks levels 3 and 4 evaluation .............................. 107
Part two ................................................................................. 111
Chapter nine: general conclusions and recommendations
........................ 111
9.1 Conclusions and recommendations under deliverable 3 ............................... 111
Part three............................................................................... 117
9.2 Recommendations under deliverable 4 ...................................................... 117
Part four ................................................................................ 119
9.3 Recommendations under deliverable 5 ...................................................... 119
Part five ................................................................................. 121
Annexe one: questionnaire

Annexe two: table of responses
Annexe three: list of background reports
Annexe four: progress table
Annexe five: chart of best, good and promising practices
Annexe six: fact sheets
........................................................................................ 122
.............................................................................. 131
.......................................................... 133
...................................................................................... 136
........................ 138
................................................................................................ 142
April 2014
Page 4 of 247

List of abbreviations
Abbreviation
Description
CADEJ
Cycle Approfondi dEtudes Judiciare
CCEJ
Consultative Council of European Judges
CEJ
Centro de Estudios Jurdicos Centre for Legal Studies
CEO
Chief Executive Officer
CGPJ
Consejo General del Poder Judicial Spanish Judicial School
CMS
Case Management System
CPA
Court Practice Analysis
CSM/ COSMAG
Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura High Council for the

Judiciary
DG JUSTICE
Directorate General Justice
EAW
European Arrest Warrant
ECHR
European Court of Human Rights
ECJ
European Court of Justice
EIPA / IEAP
European Institute of Public Administration / Institut Europen

dAdministration Publique
EJN
European Judicial Network
EJTN / REFJ
European Judicial Training Network / Rseau Europen de

Formation Judiciaire
ENM
Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature / National School for the

Judiciary France
ERA
Europische Rechtsakademie / Academy of European Law /

lAcadmie de Droit Europen
EU / UE
European Union / Union Europenne
EU COM
European Commission
EUROJUST
The European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit
FS
Fact Sheet
April 2014
Page 5 of 247

Abbreviation
Description
IFJ/IGO
LInstitut de Formation Judiciaire / Instituut voor Gerechtelijke

Opleiding / Judicial Training Institute Belgium
JOH
Judicial Office Holders
JTI
Judicial Training Institute Belgium
GCE
Gerechtscoordinator Europees Recht / Court Coordinator

European law
GJA
German Judicial Academy
KSSIP
Krajowa Szkoa Sdownictwa i Prokuratury / National School of

Judiciary and Public Prosecution Poland
LMD
Leadership and Management Developement
LMJ
Leadership and Management Judges
MHT
Mental Health Tribunal
MLA
Mutual Legal Assistance
NIJ
National School of the Judiciary Bulgaria
NIM
National Institute of Magistracy Romania
NTC
National Training Committee
ROI
Return of Investment
SJC
Supreme Judicial Council
SSM
Scuola Superiore della Magistratura Italian School for the

Judiciary Italy
SSR
Studiecentrum Rechtspleging / Training and Study Centre for

the Judiciary The Netherlands
TNA
Training Needs Assessment
TQM
Total Quality Management
UP
Unclassified Practice
April 2014
Page 6 of 247

Executive summary
1.1. In 2012 the Commission opened an invitation to tender for a project

designed to investigate Best Practices in the training of judges and
prosecutors across the European Union. Together with a budgetary

allocation, this proposal originated in the European Parliament. Following a
competitive tendering process, the European Judicial Training Network
(EJTN) was awarded the contract in January 2013.
1.2. The principal aim of the project was to identify by means of an empirical
process examples of Best, Good and Promising Practice in the training of
judges and prosecutors across the European Union, thereby promoting a
dialogue and further co-operation between judges and prosecutors on issues
arising from the project (1.2.1).
1.3. The main work of the project was carried out by a group of seven senior
experts, overseen by an internal EJTN Steering Committee and an external

EU Commission Steering Committee, the latter composed of members of
various European Institutions (1.3.1 and 1.3.3).
Methodology of the study

1.4. The principal methodology adopted by the experts was to draft and circulate
a questionnaire inviting all judicial training institutions across the European

Union to put forward examples of training practices worthy of consideration
and thereafter to analyse the responses and assess the relative merits of
each proposal. The experts provided institutions with a training guidance
framework to assist in the identification process. The working language of
the experts group was English.
1.5. In addition to delivering the final report containing the findings based on the
responses received, the project also required the delivery of a series of fact
sheets providing further information about each of the practices identified in
the study as best, good, promising or unclassified. The practices described in
the fact sheets come from a wide range of Member States with a broad
geographical spread (3.3).
1.6. The work of the project was time limited and had to be completed over a 12month period from inception to delivery.
April 2014
Page 7 of 247

1.7. The questionnaire was sent to the judicial training institutions of all 28 EU
Member States, and to three European training institutions, the Academy of

European Law (ERA), the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA)
and EJTN itself. Each responding institution was invited to provide up to 10
examples of practices they wished the experts to consider as either Best,
Good or Promising Practices, grouped in the following categories: training
needs assessment; innovative training methodology; innovative curricula or
training plans; training tools to favour the correct application of EU law and
international judicial co-operation; assessment of participants performance
in training/effect of the training activities. The experts provided a broad
definition of each type of practice as an annexe to the questionnaire.
Analysis of the responses was reinforced by follow-up questions and some
study visits (3.1).
1.8. In total, responses were received from 23 training institutions. The total
number of practices put forward for consideration in response to the
questionnaire was 157 (3.1.5 3.1.7).
Recommendations of the study

1.9. Based on the above analysis, the study makes a number of key
recommendations as follows:
The training guidance framework designed by the study experts should
provide the benchmark checklist against which the effectiveness of
judicial training programmes in the EU is measured and assessed
(9.1.1).
Judicial training institutions should actively explore the potential to adapt
the identified Best, Good and Promising Practices to their own
training environment, as most practices are highly transferable (9.1.2).
Judicial training programmes should (where appropriate) include
sufficient opportunities for common training activities between judges
and prosecutors and other professionals, both as trainers and
participants. (9.1.3)
Judicial training programmes should ensure the active participation of
judges and prosecutors in the bulk of their training activities. (9.1.3)
The European Commission should actively support transnational training
in judicial skills and judgecraft (9.1.4).
Judicial training institutions should make optimum use of new
technologies (9.1.5).
April 2014
Page 8 of 247

Judicial training institutions should take maximum advantage of the
opportunities for cross-border collaboration in the development of new
training methodologies (9.1.6).
The training needs identified by programme evaluations should be fed
directly back into the training cycle. The process of introducing long-term
evaluation by judicial training institutions should be expanded, together
with mechanisms for cross-border exchange of information on practices
(9.1.7).
The European Commission should encourage, strengthen and support
transnational training in EU law as a core priority, taking maximum
advantage of the structures and mechanisms already in place enabling
the design and delivery of cross-border training programmes (9.1.8).
Any additional pan-European training activities arising from the above
recommendations should continue to be co-ordinated within the EJTN
framework, or by EJTN members monitored by EJTN, or by other
specialist institutions or universities in close co-operation with the EJTN
in order to ensure the necessary co-ordination and to safeguard judicial
independence (9.2.6).
The EJTN will organise a series of follow-up events designed to maximise
the impact of the findings of this study. Efforts will be made within the
EJTN structures to ensure that trainer exchanges should prioritise direct
engagement with those institutions where Best, Good and Promising
Practices have been identified though this study (9.3).
All documents associated with this study will be published on the EJTN
website, and the fact sheets published on the e-justice Portal of the
European Commission (9.3).
April 2014
Page 9 of 247

Rsum
1.1. En 2012, la Commission a lanc une invitation soumissionner pour la
ralisation dun projet visant examiner les meilleures pratiques en
matire de formation des juges et des procureurs dans lUnion europenne.

Cette proposition et lenveloppe budgtaire qui lui est associe avaient
initialement t introduites par le Parlement Europen. Au terme dune
procdure dappel doffres concurrentiel, le Rseau Europen de Formation
Judiciaire (REFJ) a remport le march en janvier 2013 (1.2.1.).
1.2. Lobjectif principal de ce projet tait de recenser, au moyen dune approche

empirique, des exemples de pratiques efficaces, exemplaires ou
prometteuses en ce qui concerne la formation des juges et des procureurs
dans lUnion Europenne, et dainsi contribuer promouvoir le dialogue et

la coopration entre les juges et les procureurs dans les domaines couverts
par le projet (1.3.1. and 1.3.3.).
1.3. La majeure partie du travail a t ralise par un groupe de sept experts

chevronns superviss, au niveau interne, par le Comit de pilotage du
REFJ et, au niveau externe, par un comit directeur nomm par la
Commission et compos de membres de diverses Institutions Europennes.
Mthodologie de ltude
1.4. La principale mthodologie adopte par les experts a consist laborer et
diffuser un questionnaire demandant toutes les institutions de formation

judiciaire de lUnion Europenne de prsenter des exemples de pratiques
dignes dintrt, puis analyser les rponses en valuant la valeur de
chaque proposition. Les experts avaient fourni aux institutions un cadre
dorientation afin de faciliter le processus didentification. La langue de
travail du groupe dexperts tait langlais (3.3).
1.5. Outre le rapport final contenant les conclusions tires des rponses reues,
les prestations fournir dans le cadre du projet comprenaient galement la

fourniture dune srie de feuillets offrant de plus amples informations sur
chaque pratique juge efficace, exemplaire, prometteuse ou originale. Les
pratiques dcrites dans les feuillets proviennent dun grand nombre dtats
Membres couvrant une large zone gographique.
April 2014
Page 10 of 247

1.6. Le projet tait limit dans le temps et devait tre ralis dans un dlai de
12 mois.
1.7. Le questionnaire a t envoy aux institutions de formation judiciaire des
28 tats membres de lUE ainsi qu trois institutions impliques dans la
formation judiciaire au niveau europen, savoir lAcadmie de Droit
Europen (ERA), lInstitut Europen dAdministration Publique (IEAP) et le
REFJ lui-mme. Chaque institution participante tait invite fournir
jusqu dix exemples de pratiques susceptibles dtre juges efficaces,
exemplaires ou prometteuses, en les classant dans les catgories
suivantes: valuation des besoins de formation, mthode pdagogique
innovante, programme ou plan de formation innovant, outils de formation
destins amliorer lapplication du droit de lUnion Europenne et la
coopration judiciaire internationale, valuation des performances des
participants/des effets des activits de formation. Une liste de dfinitions
pour chaque type de pratique avait t prpare par les experts et jointe en
annexe au questionnaire. Des entretiens complmentaires et quelques
visites dtude ont galement t mens en vue dapprofondir lanalyse
(3.1).
1.8. Nous avons reu les rponses de 23 institutions de formation. Le nombre
total de pratiques suggres en rponse ce questionnaire slevait 157
(3.1.5. 3.1.7).
Recommandations de ltude
1.9. Sur la base de lanalyse susmentionne, ltude propose un certain nombre
de recommandations cls:
Le cadre dorientation prpar par les experts devrait servir de rfrence

pour mesurer et valuer lefficacit des programmes de formation
judiciaire dans lUnion (9.1.1).
Les institutions de formation judiciaire devraient activement explorer la
possibilit dadapter les pratiques efficaces, exemplaires ou
prometteuses leur propre environnement de formation, la plupart de
ces pratiques tant facilement transfrables (9.1.2).
Les programmes de formation judiciaire devraient (lorsque cela savre
appropri) prvoir un nombre suffisant dactivits de formation
communes rassemblant des juges, des procureurs et dautres
April 2014
Page 11 of 247

professionnels, aussi bien parmi les formateurs que parmi les
participants (9.1.3).
Les programmes de formation judiciaire devraient garantir une
participation active des juges et des procureurs dans la majeure partie
des activits (9.1.4).
La Commission Europenne devrait activement soutenir la formation
transnationale en ce qui concerne les comptences judiciaires et
lexercice de la profession de juge (9.1.5).
Les institutions de formation judiciaire devraient tirer le meilleur parti
des nouvelles technologies (9.1.6).
Les institutions de formation judiciaire devraient profiter au maximum
des possibilits de collaboration transfrontalire pour dvelopper de
nouvelles mthodologies de formation (9.1.7).
Les besoins de formation recenss grce lvaluation des programmes
devraient tre directement rinjects au dbut du cycle de formation. La
ralisation dvaluations long terme par les institutions de formation
judiciaire devrait tre encourage, de mme que lutilisation de
mcanismes permettant lchange transfrontalier dinformations sur les
pratiques existantes (9.1.8).
La Commission Europenne devrait se donner comme priorit
dencourager, de renforcer et de soutenir la formation transnationale au
droit de lUnion, en profitant au maximum des structures et des
mcanismes dj en place permettant llaboration et la mise en uvre
de programmes de formation transfrontaliers (9.2.6).
Les activits de formation paneuropennes mises en uvre sur la base
des recommandations ci-dessus doivent continuer tre organises
dans le cadre du REFJ, ou par les membres du Rseau sous sa
supervision, ou par des universits et dautres institutions spcialises
en troite coopration avec le REFJ afin de garantir la coordination
ncessaire et prserver lindpendance judiciaire (9.3).
Le REFJ organisera une srie dvnements de suivi destins
maximiser limpact des conclusions de la prsente tude. Des efforts
seront entrepris au sein des structures du Rseau afin de privilgier, lors
des changes de formateurs, le contact direct avec les institutions
lorigine des pratiques efficaces, exemplaires ou prometteuses
recenses dans la prsente tude (9.3).
Tous les documents associs cette tude pourront tre consults sur le
site web du REFJ, tandis que les feuillets dinformation seront publis
sur le portail e-Justice de la Commission Europenne (9.3).
April 2014
Page 12 of 247

Part one
Chapter one: background to report

1.1. Background1
1.1.1. In 2011 the European Parliament published a major study on Judicial Training in
the European Union2, with special reference to training in the law of the European
Union. The report (`the ERA-EJTN study`)3 was written by the Academy of European
Law (ERA) a key provider of such training in Europe for the past 22 years. The study
was carried out in co-operation with the EJTN and its members. The report was
preceded by a number of further studies that dealt with wide-ranging aspects of
European training for judicial office holders.4
1.1.2. The main purpose of the ERA EJTN study was to provide an in-depth,
objective analysis of judicial training in the Member States on European Union law (EU
law), the law of other Member States and comparative law. Based upon this study,
ERA went on, a) to identify the institutions in the European Union currently leading
such training; b) to compile an inventory of Good Practices in judicial training, which
may be shared between jurisdictions, especially with regard to EU law; and c) to make
recommendations5 about possible solutions to shortcomings identified in the current
provision of judicial training at European Union level.
1.1.3. The study was extensive and of high quality. Reflecting upon the wider issues of
judicial training not limited to training in EU law, the Commission, guided by the
European Parliament, subsequently determined that there was a need for further and
more detailed empirical work that could identify more examples of transferable Good
In most continental civil law, European countries judges and prosecutors are considered to have functions
that, though different in practice, are largely judicial in nature. In contrast, in common law European
countries a clear distinction is drawn between the respective roles of the two professions. The former are
deemed to be judicial officers, the latter are not. However, in a landmark case, the UK Supreme Court has
acknowledged that in many circumstances a European prosecutor falls within the common law definition of a
judicial office holder: Assange (Appellant) v The Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent) [2012] UKSC
22. For the purposes of this study, and in acknowledgement of the fact that judges and prosecutors
frequently train together in these jurisdictions, we have treated the training provided for judges and
prosecutors as methodologically synonymous, i.e. it is judicial office holders who are being trained. This
maxim also applies in cases where it is lay members (i.e. experts who sit on adjudication panels but who
are not judges) who are being trained. We have excluded from this study training provided exclusively to
prosecutors in common law Europe for the reasons mentioned above.
Judicial Training in the EU Member States: Study for the European Parliament, 2011.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/453198/IPOLJURI_ET(2011)453198(SUM01)_EN.pdf
See List of Background Reports in ANNEXE THREE.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/453198/IPOLJURI_ET(2011)453198(SUM01)_EN.pdf
2
3
4
5
April 2014
Page 13 of 247

Practices in the training of judges and prosecutors (where the latter are also judicial
office holders).
1.1.4. Building on the ERA EJTN study, in 2012 the Commission opened an invitation
to tender for a Project designed to investigate Good Practices in the training of judges
and prosecutors across the European Union.6 Following a competitive tendering
process, the EJTN was awarded the contract in January 2013.
1.2 Objectives and deliverables of the project

1.2.1. Objectives
In the Commissions tender document for this Project7 the Objectives of the Project
were stated to be as follows:
The objective of this Project is to complete a study comprising the following elements:
To produce a comprehensive definition of what constitutes Best, (Good and
Promising) Practices in training of judges and prosecutors both in national
legal systems and traditions, and also in European Union law and judicial cooperation procedures.
To provide a guidance framework within which Best, (Good and
Promising) Practices in these fields can be developed.
By empirical investigation, to seek out and identify examples of Best,
(Good and Promising) Practices in these fields from amongst the Member
States of the European Union.
Based upon the findings above, to recommend ways of improving such
training, by promoting a dialogue and further co-operation between judges
and prosecutors across the European Union.
To recommend methods for promoting exchanges of Best, (Good and
Promising) Practices across the European Union.
To establish processes for the dissemination of Best, (Good and
Promising) Practice methodology amongst all judicial training providers in
the European Union.
Tender JUST/2012/JUTR/PR/0064/A4 Implementation of the Pilot Project European Judicial Training
Lot 1 Study on Best Practices in training of judges and prosecutors.
Ibid. p.9.
April 2014
Page 14 of 247

1.2.2. Deliverables
The European Commission set down the Projects Deliverables as follows:
Deliverable 1
Definition of the concept of Best Practice in training of judges and
prosecutors in national legal systems and traditions as well as in European

Union law and judicial co-operation procedures, taking into account the training
needs and local realities of judges and prosecutors.
Deliverable 2
Identification of Best Practices in identifying training needs and in training
of judges and prosecutors in national legal systems and traditions as well as in

European Union law and judicial co-operation procedures, at local, regional,
national or European level, implemented by judicial training structures, or
courts, or any other relevant stakeholder including academics in the EU and
Croatia; presentation of the identified Best Practices in such a way as to
highlight the elements that make their transfer desirable and the requirements
to proceed to such a transfer, under the form of separate factsheets, in view of
easy dissemination notably via the European e-Justice Portal; if possible,
collection of training material for dissemination on the European e-Justice
Portal.
Deliverable 3
Recommendations to improve training of judges and prosecutors in
national legal systems and traditions as well as in European Union law and
judicial co-operation procedures, in terms of topics or skills to be covered, of
quality of the training delivered and of the attractiveness of the training for the
judiciary to ensure increased participation, as well as in terms of promotion of
the dialogue and co-operation between EU judges and prosecutors.
Deliverable 4
Recommendations for the European Commission and/or the judicial
training providers and other relevant stakeholders regarding how best to
hold regular fora as suggested by the European Parliaments resolution on

judicial training of 14 March 2012, at which judges of all levels of seniority in
areas of law where domestic and cross-border issues frequently arise can hold
discussions on a recent area or areas of legal controversy or difficulty, in order
to encourage discussion, build contacts, create channels of communication and
build mutual confidence and understanding.
April 2014
Page 15 of 247

Deliverable 5
Recommendations regarding the best ways to disseminate Best Practices
and promote exchanges of Best Practices amongst all the judicial training
providers at all levels in the EU and Croatia.
1.3 Preliminary preparations for the project: the role of the project steering
committee and involvement of EU COM steering committee
1.3.1. Immediately after the contract was signed, the EJTN commenced work on the
Project, and a number of building blocks were put into place. A Project Steering
Committee was established within the EJTN consisting of the chairs of all EJTNs
internal working groups, the Project Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and its core
administrator. The main role of the Project Steering Committee has been to monitor
the full execution of the Project, through the medium of the Projects seven senior
experts, and generally to assist the Projects CEO in the full execution of the Projects
aims and objectives.
1.3.2. Alongside this, an external Project Steering Committee was established the
European Commission (EU COM) Steering Committee whose members include
representatives of the European Parliament, of different Directorate Generals of the
European Commission, the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), the
European Union's Judicial Co-operation Unit (EUROJUST) and a representative from
the University College London Judicial Institute. The European Commission Steering
Committee was set up, a) to monitor the implementation of the project; b) to propose
recommendations regarding its execution; and c) to help ensure the dissemination of
its results.
1.3.3. The Project Laboratory of senior experts was appointed in February 2013 by the
Project Steering Committee from amongst a list of nominations provided by the
national training institutions participating in the project. To be eligible for
consideration, experts had to have at least eight years of judicial training experience
at senior level, be available to attend regular meetings as required by the Projects
Steering Committee, and be fluent in the English language. The following seven senior
experts were selected on the basis of CVs from a shortlist of 25 applicants: (names
listed in alphabetical order).
1. Cedric Visart de Bocarme Public Prosecutor Federal Prosecution
Office of Belgium (National Institute of Justice IGO IFJ, Belgium)
April 2014
Page 16 of 247

2. Jeremy Cooper Professor and Tribunal Judge and Director of Tribunal
Training (Judicial College, United Kingdom)8
3. Jorge Obach Martinez Senior Judge Barcelona Court of Appeal
(Spanish Judicial School, Spain)
4. Ineke van de Meene Senior Course Manager (Training and Study
Centre for the Judiciary SSR, The Netherlands)
5. Roxana Rizoiu Senior Trainer (National Institute of Magistracy NIM,
Romania)
6. Raffaele Sabato Justice Supreme Court of Cassation (Italian School
for the Judiciary, Italy)
7. Dragomir Yordanov Director (National Institute of Justice, Bulgaria)
1.4. The role of the project chief executive officer (CEO)

1.4.1. The Project Chief Executive Officer was responsible for the overall co-ordination
of the project and assisted by a dedicated administrator Sara Sipos EJTN
Secretariat.
1.4.2. The Projects CEO, although not forming part of any of the bodies above or of
the Laboratory of Experts, was assigned the roles of, a) drafting the full projects
initial proposal to the European Commission; b) supervising the formal execution of
the project with regard to the contractual timetable; c) monitoring the projects
budgetary execution; d) representing the Network in the meetings of both Steering
Committees; and e) exercising any other task in relation to the EJTN internal
functioning rules.
Chapter two: defining best practice and the framework for achieving
best practice
Deliverable 1
Definition of the concept of Best Practice in training of judges and prosecutors

in national legal systems and traditions as well as in European Union law and
judicial co-operation procedures, taking into account the training needs and
local realities of judges and prosecutors.
2.1 Defining best practice in judicial training

8
See Annexe Two for further explanation of the exact jurisdiction of the Judicial College.
April 2014
Page 17 of 247

2.1.1. The experts devoted a significant amount of time and discussion in the early
weeks of the Project, a) to defining the concept of Good Practice in the context of the
training of judges and prosecutors, drawing upon their collective experience of judicial
training; and b) developing the Best Practice framework.
2.1.2. In the wider world, Good Practices are normally only cast in a broad outline.
Thus in the production process, recommendations may be given to employees,
highlighting the most efficient way to complete their tasks; in the medical profession,
or in the management of investments, a physician or a manager may follow Good
Practices when deciding about a client's health or money by prudently resorting to
pharmaceutical products or investing in a well-diversified portfolio. In these areas, it is
self-evident that one may find methods or techniques that have documented
outcomes and the ability to replicate themselves as key factors.9
2.1.3. In recent years, public agencies have also been adopting Good Practices when
delivering services related to their field of activity, such as education or welfare
services.
2.1.4. In the particular public sector represented by the administration of justice, and
of judicial training in particular, there has historically been no general consensus on
what constitutes Good Practices. We have, therefore, started our quest from a
tabula rasa.
2.1.5. Because of the contrasting values that justice seeks to reconcile by resorting to
the rule of law (for example the rights of the victim versus those of the accused party;
public interest versus private interest), and the need to preserve the independence of
the judiciary as a general framework which ensures that the rule of law is effectively
applied, it is difficult to define Good Practices in areas in which differing legal
standards apply.
2.1.6. Judicial training tends to reflect the characteristics of the systems of justice in
which judges or prosecutors operate. In addition many countries have no mandatory
judicial training, carry out no assessments of participants performance in training, and
fail to monitor the cost-efficiency of training. This means the true indices of what
makes a practice Best are unavailable.
In the UK the NICE Guidelines on clinical practice provide a good example, but there are many such
examples across Europe.
April 2014
Page 18 of 247

2.1.7. Despite this contentious background, at their preliminary meeting on 27th
February 2013 at the EJTN office in Brussels the experts managed to set out their own
definition of a Best Practice in the context of judicial training as follows: A Best
Practice is a training programme or strategy having the highest degree of

proven effectiveness supported by objective and comprehensive research and
evaluation.
2.1.8. Early on in this Project, the group of experts also decided that, rather than
talking exclusively about Best Practices, it would be a more fruitful route of enquiry
to also investigate examples of Good Practices. A Good Practice is a programme
or strategy that has worked within one or more organisation and shows
promise of becoming a Best Practice, as it has some objective basis for
claiming effectiveness and potential for replication among other
organisations. In reality, in everyday usage the concepts of Best and Good
Practices are often used interchangeably, as they may overlap. In measuring
effectiveness, a number of factors must be taken into consideration, including the

content and quality of the programme per se, the link between the programme and
any preliminary needs analysis, the quality of the trainers, the accessibility of the
programme to trainees, and its subsequent impact upon the performance of judges
and prosecutors, as appropriately evaluated.
2.1.9. The definition of a Best or Good Practice in the field of judicial training can be
further widened to include, a) its capacity to be effectively transferred to other
jurisdictions; b) the extent to which it innovates or refreshes (even inspires) existing,
established training practices to enhance the learning experience of judges and
prosecutors; c) the capacity of the practice to adapt to the differing cultural, social and
economic circumstances in which different judicial systems operate across the
European Union; d) the existence of clear evidence that it meets an articulated
training need.
2.1.10. Finally, for the purposes of this Project, the experts also explored a third
category of practice, which they defined as a Promising Practice. A Promising
(sometimes only experimental) Practice in judicial training is a Practice with

at least preliminary evidence of effectiveness or for which there is potential
for generating data that will be useful in determining its promise to become a
Good or Best Practice for transfer to wider, more diverse judicial training
environments.
April 2014
Page 19 of 247

2.1.11. In identifying a training practice as Best, Good or Promising, the experts
also gave consideration to the general question: Is this practice transferable to
jurisdictions in other countries within the European Union? They decided that an
effective practice is an effective practice and is therefore potentially

transferable anywhere either fully or in an adapted format, according to the
circumstances. They encourage readers of this report to consider the
practices that they have identified in this same spirit of enquiry and
openness.
2.1.12. Having adopted the above definitions, the experts offered the following
suggestions to all potential respondents to their questionnaire:
a) Most choices about practices in the area of judicial training are linked to
policy issues, usually centred on judicial independence, e.g. no mandatory
training and no assessment of participants performance in training is the
rule in many countries, on the basis that this preserves judicial
independence. Such trade-offs should be evaluated, so that e.g. costeffectiveness should not be the only parameter to evaluate effectiveness,
since other values (such as the protection of judicial independence) are
also at stake; in short, a Best Practice is not such if it jeopardises
judicial independence, but also is not such if, in order to preserve

it, it is not cost-effective.
b) Since in the area of judicial training there is such a strong connection

between practice and public policy, generalisation of behaviours does not
necessarily mean that such behaviours are Good Practices. In fact, the
impossibility of assessing cost-effectiveness may prevent the identification
of some generalised practices as being non-effective. Therefore, more
sophisticated analyses are necessary to identify acceptable Good or
Promising Practices. In short, when identifying Good Practices,
breaking loose from generalised behaviours challenges those behaviours in
order to add value, and offers the opportunity to introduce a new Best
Practice in public policy that has not previously been considered.
c) Attention should be paid to local connotations of the practice, allowing
flexibility as to how it is implemented. In short, the practice should be
described in as broad a manner as possible, so that it may be adjusted to
suit different local conditions.
d) Analysis should also describe potential vulnerabilities that could lead a
practice to fail, e.g. in settings in which financial or management capacities
are not available, or in which different values may jeopardise the results.
April 2014
Page 20 of 247

The analysis should pay attention to economic, geographical and cultural
diversities.
e) Nonetheless, Good Practices should be simple, consistent in their
components, and capable of standardisation.
2.2 Creating a training guidance framework

2.2.1. Having agreed the definition of what constitutes a Best, Good or Promising
Practice in judicial training, the experts proceeded to design and agree a Training
Guidance Framework that would provide the broad parameters of the required (or
at least expected) content of a full judicial training programme. They use the word
training in its broadest sense to include not only teaching but also time for personal
learning, self-reflection, and self-tuition.
2.2.2. The experts did not expect participating training bodies to put forward examples
of Best Practice programmes that covered ALL the content contained in the
Framework. They did, however, anticipate that for a programme to be put forward as
a Best Practice example, it would reflect one or more of the areas contained in the
Guidance Framework. In their view the overall contemporary training programme for
any national cohort of judges and prosecutors should encompass most, if not all, of
the issues covered by the Framework.
2.2.3. As a fundamental premise the experts assert that every good training
programme must be based upon an analysis of, a) the training needs of individual
judges and prosecutors; and b) the training needs of judges and prosecutors as
required by wider society. They also accept that a central element of any good training
programme must be an awareness of the necessity of devising training that can be
delivered within the resources that are available.
2.2.4. The experts have developed a Training Guidance Framework which sets out
the core themes and content that in their view should be included in any
contemporary training programme for judges and prosecutors as follows:
Need for appropriate methodology

The emphasis in judicial training should increasingly be upon the use of case
studies, small discussion groups, and where appropriate maximising the
potential for e-Learning.
April 2014
Page 21 of 247

Judgecraft
This major topic seeks to cover a wide range of subjects including case
management, judicial conduct and ethics, assessment of credibility, evidence
gathering and decision writing, including an analysis of processes leading to
decisions such as sentencing theories.
The social context of judging
This refers to the use of appropriate training to ensure that judges and
prosecutors have a high level of awareness about how the differing
backgrounds, capacities, needs and expectations of those appearing in courts
and tribunals should be reflected in the conduct of judicial proceedings.
Technological skills
All modern judges and prosecutors should be skilled in the use and application
of information technology. This includes good personal computing skills, the
ability to access and use research databases, and an understanding of the
range and significance of social media.
Training of judges in EU law relevant to their jurisdiction
This is a core purpose of this Project, which also reflects the aspirations of both
the Stockholm Programme Resolution on Judicial Training (17 June 2012)10 and
Articles 81.2 h and 82.1 c of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, created by the Lisbon Treaty.11
Training of judges to deliver the programmes

As a general principle, judges and prosecutors are best placed to train judges
and prosecutors or at least to plan and supervise their training. Judicial training
programmes should ensure they are adequately trained for this purpose.
Training of judges in perceptions of justice users
Judges and prosecutors should be sensitive to how they are perceived by

justice users, without compromising their independence. Training programmes
that expose judges to the perceptions of justice users in controlled and
sensitive ways are to be encouraged.
European Parliament resolution of 17 June 2010 on Judicial training Stockholm Programme Official
Journal (2011/C 236 E/23).
Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European
Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007 - Official Journal 2007/C 306/01.
10
11
April 2014
Page 22 of 247

Chapter three: methodology for the study
Deliverable 2
Identification of Best Practices in identifying training needs and in training
of judges and prosecutors in national legal systems and traditions as well as in

European Union law and judicial co-operation procedures, at local, regional,
national or European level, implemented by judicial training structures, or
courts, or any other relevant stakeholder including academics in the EU and
Croatia; presentation of the identified Best Practices in such a way as to
highlight the elements that make their transfer desirable and the requirements
to proceed to such a transfer, under the form of separate factsheets, in view of
easy dissemination notably via the European e-Justice Portal; if possible,
collection of training material for dissemination on the European e-Justice
Portal.
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1. Given the time scales and the resources available to execute this project, it was
essential to devise a methodology that would prove effective and appropriate to the
task. The experts decided that the use of a detailed empirical questionnaire would
constitute their primary research method. Once devised and approved by the
Commission, the questionnaire12 would be sent to all the institutions providing training
for judges and prosecutors in the European Union. The findings of the questionnaire
would also be supplemented where appropriate by information provided to the project
from other sources.
3.1.2. At its first meeting, the European Commission Steering Committee issued
recommendations with regard to the questionnaire and these were subsequently
implemented by the EJTN. The EJTN provided a full list of national training institutions
and other European stakeholders in the field of judicial training who might be in a
position to contribute to the study.13 An initial invitation was sent on behalf of the
EJTN to all these organisations, firstly inviting them to participate in the Project, and
then inviting them:
To nominate national contact points which would be responsible for the
execution of the project questionnaire on behalf of the institution.
To provide the names of other experts to assist in the project.
12
13
See ANNEXE ONE for a copy of the full Questionnaire.

See ANNEXE TWO for full list of organisations who participated in the study.
April 2014
Page 23 of 247

In due course, to answer the questionnaire that would be circulated to all
participants inviting them to put forward examples of Best, Good and
Promising training practices.
If required, to accept and host study visits.
3.1.3. Following this process, the EJTN established a network of national contact
points, and a further pool of junior experts was set up to assist in the preparation of
study visits by the senior experts, and where required to investigate further some of
the examples identified as potential Best Practices.
3.1.4. In answering the questions, in addition to providing a general description of the
identified practice, respondents were encouraged to address a series of issues in
relation to the practice. The questions were specifically designed to provide the study
with information on the range of factors that collectively would enable the experts to
classify the projected practices as Best, Good or Promising according to their
definitions of these practices. These included questions such as: What issues or
problems needed to be solved in developing the practice? What need was addressed
by the practice? How was this practice adopted, implemented and executed? What
conditions had to be in place? What resources (people, time, money etc.) had to be
acquired before the practice could be introduced? How much time was needed to
implement the practice? Was there any resistance to the introduction of the practice,
and if so, how was this tackled? What results have been achieved so far by using the
practice? How do you assess the effectiveness of this practice? Additional remarks on
the economic, geographical and/or cultural context that affect the adoption and
implementation of the practice were also invited.
3.1.5. A total of 157 individual practices were submitted to the project team for
consideration as examples of Best, Good or Promising Practices.
3.1.6. Despite the fact that this wide range of examples was more than adequate to
enable the experts to provide a wide-ranging overview of many of the Best, Good
and Promising judicial training practices in the great majority of the European Union
countries (as well as in the two other main European stakeholders),14 some national
training institutions nevertheless did not submit any kind of answer to the
questionnaire.
14
See Annexe Two
April 2014
Page 24 of 247

3.1.7. This constituted the greatest difficulty experienced in the course of the Project.
It was, however, entirely a matter for each national training institution to decide
whether or not they wished to participate in the Project. The experts fully respected
these decisions, whatever may have been the reason (for instance, Cyprus does not
have a Judicial Academy or a Judicial Studies Board and the Supreme Court, the entity
responsible for the training of judges, carries out only a very limited number of
training activities per year, which consequently dilutes the existing expertise available
to provide systematic training delivery).
3.1.8. In June and July 2013 the experts initially working in small teams and
following a detailed analysis of the questionnaire responses identified a core set of
possible Best, Good or Promising Practices worthy of further investigation. The
preliminary classifications were then discussed by the experts in a plenary session. In
total the experts met as a group on six15 occasions in various locations and also met
in sub-groups as part of the study visits.16 In addition, much of the further work of the
group was achieved, a) via electronic communication, in particular through sub-group
work and analysis, although the key strategic discussions, decisions and
recommendations all took place in the plenary sessions; and b) by further
investigation of organisations identified either in the questionnaire responses or from
within the range of expertise of the team in order to clarify and expand our
understanding of the issues involved. The experts identified 65 practices which have
been summarised into 65 factsheets.
First meeting of the Experts Laboratory: 27 February 2013, Brussels, Belgium

Second meeting of the Experts Laboratory: 11 June 2013, Brussels, Belgium
Third meeting of the Experts Laboratory: 24 25 June 2013, Brussels, Belgium
Fourth meeting of the Experts Laboratory: 29 August 2013, Brussels, Belgium
Fifth meeting of the Experts Laboratory: 19 20 November 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria
Sixth meeting of the Experts Laboratory: 20 January 2014, Barcelona, Spain
Study visit to England: 14-15 October 2013 Practice: Business of Judging
Study visit to Bulgaria: 19-20 November 2013 Practice: EU Law and Distance Learning
Study visit to Estonia: 3 December 2013 Practice: Court Practice Analysis
Study visit to France: 16-18 December 2013 Practice: Leadership and Management Training
15
16
April 2014
Page 25 of 247

3.2 Categories identified

The six categories of the investigation that the experts have identified (subsequently
merged into five: see below at 3.2.4.) are as follows:
3.2.1. Training needs assessments

Crucial to any good training programme is the need to have in place a systematic,
robust and comprehensive process, that a) assesses the training needs of judges and
prosecutors; b) ensures those needs are reflected in the training programme; c)
regularly reviews and, where necessary, updates the training programme to meet new
or developing needs. The senior experts identified relatively few notable or
outstanding practices under this heading.
3.2.2. Innovative curricula or training plans in any given particular area

The experts found a number of interesting examples of innovation in the design of
judicial training programmes in the course of the study. Of particular note is the
extent to which judicial training is increasingly drawing upon other disciplines to
strengthen and enrich core programmes, working alongside other professionals (e.g.
economists, doctors, psychologists, actors). Training in practical skills, including
management of cases and of people and the use of live case reconstructions and
simulated role plays is increasingly to the fore in several programmes. A number of
examples of Best Practice emerged under this category.
3.2.3. Innovative training methodology

The use of innovative training methodology across European judicial training is on the
increase, and there are a number of impressive examples of innovation that figure
prominently in the study. Of particular note is the increasing use of electronic media,
the development of new training styles focused on individual needs. Best, Good and
Promising Practices are plentiful under this category.
April 2014
Page 26 of 247

3.2.4. Implementation of training tools to favour the correct application of EU

law and the implementation of training tools to favour international judicial
co-operation
The importance of judicial training on European Union law and international judicial
co-operation is widely acknowledged and the judicial training institutions are exploring
good and best ways of implementing this. In the questionnaire, applications of EU Law
and Training Tools to Favour International Judicial Co-operation were treated as
separate categories (see Annexe One). However, once the responses had been
received, it became clear that the issues were effectively inseparable, and the
distinction was unhelpful from a training methodology perspective. The experts
therefore made an early decision for the purposes of this study to merge the two
categories into one. The Best, Good and Promising Practices that were presented
indicate that both a national approach (using a combination of tools) and international
co-operation with other training institutions are probably the most effective ways to
provide such training.
3.2.5 Assessment of participants performance in training/effect of the

training activities
This appears to be the area of least activity, according to questionnaire responses. The
experts nevertheless identified several areas of Practices under this heading, all of
which are worthy of further exploration. The transnational training organisations ERA
(the Academy of European Law) and EIPA (the European Institute of Public
Administration) are especially strong in their approach to this issue.
April 2014
Page 27 of 247

3.2.6 Overview of the categories

This diagram of the categories shows how they all complement one another.
Training Process Model
Learning
Evaluation
Assessment of
participants
performance in
training/effect of
the training
activities
Needs Analysis
Training needs assessment
Knowledge
Skills
Attitudes
Content Design
and
Implementation
Innovative training
methodology
Innovative curricula
/training plan
The International
Dimension
International judicial cooperation
3.3 Summary
3.3.1. By this study, the experts have identified a significant number of training
practices that they consider to be examples of a Best Practice, a Good Practice or a
Promising Practice. They have also concluded that the great majority of the
identified Best and Good Practices are fully transferable within the European Union.
As, by their very nature, Promising Practices are still at a developmental stage,
they decided it would be premature to make any comments on transferability at this
stage.
April 2014
Page 28 of 247

3.3.2. It cannot be stressed enough that the methodology adopted throughout this
Project has been an essentially reactive methodology. The project invited national
training institutions to provide exemplars of practices that they considered worthy of
consideration by the project team. The project team did not proactively seek such
examples, as this would have been both impractical in light of the experts limited
resources and it would also have run contrary to the spirit of the study. The
availability of follow-up written and telephonic interviews and of study visits, together
with the experts own collective knowledge and expertise provided the experts with
the necessary tools to provide the robust analysis that has led to their conclusions.
This methodology should be clearly understood by all readers of this report and its
conclusions.
3.3.3. In addition to the above practices, the project team found some examples of
practices whose most striking characteristic is the fact that they are very widely used
and are thus common to a wide range of EU countries. The team was invited to
include some or all of such practices within the scope of the study. However, after
careful consideration of the question, they decided that it would not be appropriate to
include these general practices in this study as it is clearly directed to much more
specific and exceptional characteristics, which do not include common usage. They,
therefore, decided that unless these practices fall into a Best, Good or Promising
category they should be excluded from the study as being outside the terms of
reference.
3.3.4. Finally, it is pleasing to note that the study found examples of Best, Good and
Promising Practices over a wide range of EU countries with a broad geographical
spread.
3.3.5. In summary, the project team designated 29 practices as examples of a Best
Practice, 16 practices as examples of a Good Practice and 17 practices as examples
of a Promising Practice. Three further practices were unclassified [See Fact Sheet
UP1, UP2 and UP 3]. Ten practices have been identified under the category Training
Needs Assessment, 21 practices under the category Innovative Curricula or Training
Plan in any Given Area, 19 practices under the category Innovative Training
Methodology, nine practices under the category Implementation of Training Tools to
Favour the Correct Application of EU Law and International Judicial Co-operation and
five practices under the category Assessment of Participants Performance in
Training/Effect of the Training Activities.
April 2014
Page 29 of 247

A chart setting out the institutional distribution of these practices is to be found at
Annexe Five.
3.3.6. The identified Best, Good and Promising Practices are each described in
detail in Part One of the report. Parts Two, Three and Four of the report set out
our conclusions and recommendations against the LOT 1 Deliverables 3, 4, and 5.
Fact sheets summarising the key features of each identified Practice have been
prepared for each Practice. The fact sheets can be found in Annexes Five and Six.
April 2014
Page 30 of 247

Chapter four: training needs assessment

4.1 Introduction
4.1.1. Training Needs Assessment (TNA) is the initial stage and perhaps the most
critical element of the training cycle that further comprises training objectives, plan
and design of the training, implementation and evaluation of the training (see also
diagram of Training Process Model at Chapter 3.2.6).
4.1.2. Training theory defines the need in several ways but in general it is described
as the gap between existing and desired knowledge, skills and abilities, which could be
reduced or even eliminated through training.
4.1.3. In order to be successful, all training programmes must begin with a needs
assessment. The results of the needs assessment are particularly important for the
efficient and effective management of training in terms of:
Identifying the gaps in knowledge, skills and attitudes of the target group
Setting priorities in terms of topics, audience, training events, etc.
Choosing the most appropriate forms, methods, time and place for delivery of
training
Managing (limited) resources
Facilitating organisational development and planning, etc.
4.1.4. There is a close inter-relation between assessment of training needs and
evaluation of training activities. In general, the evaluation of training activities
demonstrates to what extent training needs have been successfully addressed by the
training activities. At the same time evaluation of training activities helps to identify
new/further training needs (see also Chapter Eight).
4.1.5. Training needs assessment can be conducted at three different levels:
Organisational level a type of assessment that identifies the knowledge, skills
and competences needed by the organisation (i.e. the judiciary) as a whole.
Functional level a type of assessment that identifies the knowledge, skills and
competences needed by the profession (i.e. judge or prosecutor) or by function
(civil judge, criminal judge, court president, etc.).
Individual level type of assessment that identifies the individual training
needs of target group members.
April 2014
Page 31 of 247

4.2 TNA in judicial training

4.2.1. This study suggests that most (if not all) judicial training institutions carry out
regular assessment of the training needs of their target groups. In general, they follow
common approaches and methods that could be considered as a standard practice.
Besides this, some Best, Good and Promising Practices have been identified that
will be described in more detail in the respective sections below. In general terms the
experts found that:
a) TNA is conducted regularly, usually on an annual basis, as part of the
preparation for the next years training plan or for the purposes of long and
medium-term planning.
b) TNA is a structured process in terms of the timing, stages, procedures and
organisations involved. The procedures followed are more or less formal
and regulated.
c) TNA is based on a broad range of sources and methods.
4.2.2. Judicial training institutions generally collect information about the training
needs of their target group(s) from a broad range of sources. These include:
Judges and prosecutors themselves
Other legal professions related to the judiciary such as lawyers, academics,
court staff
Court Presidents and Chief Prosecutors who play an important role in the
process in some countries
Members of the organisations responsible for the elaboration and/or the
approval of training programmes, such as Programme Councils, Academic
Committees, etc. as well as other experts
Institutional stakeholders, such as Ministries of Justice, Councils of the
Judiciaries, professional associations of judges and prosecutors, NGOs,
universities, etc.
The Legislature and/or Ministry of Justice as a specific source of information on
forthcoming legislative initiatives that might affect the Judiciary
Analysis of policy and strategic documents at both national and international
(EU) level, etc.
4.3 Specific sources and methods for TNA
April 2014
Page 32 of 247

4.3.1. Judicial training institutions in general collect information about the training
needs of their target group(s) using multiple methods, often combining several of
them in the process. The procedure followed is generally standardised to secure
compatible results throughout the years. The most frequently-used methods are:
Surveys and questionnaires (both paper and online)
Focus groups
Interviews (telephone or in person)
Formal and informal meetings and consultations
Satisfaction forms and other feedback information tools from training
evaluation
4.3.2. Some interesting examples of specific sources and methods used for TNA have
been identified throughout the study.
In Estonia the Supreme Court uses the Court Practice Analysis (CPA) as a specific
method for collecting information on TNA.
The primary objective of the CPA is to serve as a tool to encourage uniform application
of the law by providing judges with focused, practically oriented, concise analysis of
court practice and decision-making in a short time. The CPA aims to identify any
systemic problems of consistency in the application of the law by the courts. It is
focused primarily on the application of the law via judicial decision-making (both
material and procedural), with very limited use of any statistical analysis and no
analysis of court management or the administration of justice. It is performed by a
small team of legal analysts who form a part of the Supreme Court administration.
Their reports are published and disseminated to judges as unbinding sources of
information or reference and are used as training materials. The CPA is not used for
individual evaluation of judges nor for their performance evaluation or any disciplinary
procedure.
The CPA is also used in TNA as an additional source of information to supplement the
standard procedures (such as surveys, focus groups, formal and informal consultations
with judges and stakeholders) and for cross-checking them. Based on the CPA results,
it is decided which of any systemic problems identified could be addressed through
training. The topics and training activities selected are subsequently included in the
annual training plan. The CPA is also used to cross-check feedback information from
April 2014
Page 33 of 247

the judges about their training needs. On average between 10-20% of the training
topics in different years emerge via the CPA.
CPA is also used as a tool for Training Impact Assessment (see Chapter Eight at
8.4.2).
The project team considers the use of the CPA for training needs assessment to be a
Promising Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 1].
4.3.3. In Romania the National Institute of Magistracy (NIM) uses a combination of
sources and methods for TNA as part of a well-structured and regulated procedure.
TNA and the elaboration of the annual training plan follow a well-regulated and
structured procedure, involving the NIM Scientific Council and the High Council of the
Judiciary. Information about the training needs of judges and prosecutors is collected
from multiple sources (judicial trainers, courts and prosecutors offices, professional
associations of magistrates, other legal professionals, training evaluation from
previous years, etc.). The range of topics included in the training catalogue is crosschecked with the number of participants applications. An online system has recently
been put in place containing all current courses available. Judges and prosecutors are
invited to mark the requested topics for the next year or to formulate new proposals.
The level of demand for every course is recorded. This process allows NIM to identify
the most requested courses, and facilitates financial planning.
Before training takes place, participants are also asked to send proposals for topics
and questions that are to be debated during the training sessions. The project team
considers this multi-faceted TNA process to be an example of Good Practice [See
Fact Sheet No.2].
4.4 TNA at the organisational level

TNA at an organisational level assesses the training needs of the judiciary as a whole
or of separate parts of it. Examples have been found of judicial training institutions
that are currently changing the focus of their TNA from the individual to the
organisational level.
April 2014
Page 34 of 247

4.4.1. In Belgium, the Judicial Training Institute (JTI) has developed a competences
matrix which has been used to conduct a TNA at an operational level using a gap
analysis.
In this gap analysis, court presidents and chief prosecutors were asked to give the JTI
an overview of the current state of competences in their court/office. Thereafter the
Belgian Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice were asked to assess the
required competence levels for the judicial staff and the judges. Then, on the basis of
these competence standards, JTI will compare the actual competences with the
required competences. The results of this gap analysis should show the areas where
more training programmes should be created by the JTI. The proposal is to carry out
this analysis within the Judicial Training Institute itself for the next four to five years.
4.4.2. The practice has been adopted in order to avoid the reception of training wish
lists as has been the case in the past. Another positive aspect is considered to be the
involvement of court presidents and chief prosecutors in the process. Changing the
focus from the needs of the individual to needs at operational level (courts and
prosecution offices), or even at organisational level, is a further positive aspect of this
practice. Its implementation is still, however, a work in progress and so the project
team considers this to be an example of a Promising Practice [See Fact Sheet
No.3].
4.4.3. Another interesting approach to TNA at the organisational level is to be found in
the Mental Health Tribunal in the Judicial College (England only).17 In 2012 the
Tribunal organised an evaluation of its entire training programme (the jurisdiction
includes over 1000 judicial office holders), which involved the use of an online
questionnaire and data analysis designed to: a) review the existing training provided
to members of the jurisdiction; and b) enhance the content and quality of training to
be provided in the future. Although individual training courses were already evaluated
in a structured way, the programme leaders wanted to drill further down and create
an opportunity to take a wider view of how and what training is provided across the
Tribunal.
4.4.4. It was thought that asking trainees themselves about the content, method,
location and other aspects of training would provide the most helpful insight into the
17
The Welsh Mental Health Tribunal falls outside the responsibilities of the Judicial College.
April 2014
Page 35 of 247

training needs of members and would also generate the most relevant ideas for new
training or adaptation of existing training for this group.
4.4.5. The project required a partnership approach between the mental health training
judge, internal Judicial College training and evaluation experts and also IT experts in
the Ministry of Justice. Consideration was given to the most important areas of
training where the project needed to yield information and a draft questionnaire was
devised. These included pace, method and level of training, quality of training
materials, preferred duration of training, topics and relevance of these to the range
and experience level of members. Preferences for post-course evaluation methods
were also explored. In order to make the data collection and analysis as easy as
possible, the questionnaire was comprised primarily of multiple-choice questions and a
small number of questions that allowed free text responses.
4.4.6. The questionnaire generated a total of 544 responses (over 50% of the
membership), which were collated by the Ministry of Justice IT team. Judicial College
Training Advisers produced a report which outlined the themes and trends of the
responses.
4.4.7. It is still too soon to determine the full impact of this full programme evaluation
study, and the experts, therefore, describe this as a Promising Practice [See Fact
Sheet No. 4]. If, however, it emerges in time that the project has had a significant
change impact upon the whole design and approach to training methodology in this
jurisdiction, it may then merit reclassification as a Best Practice in Chapter Eight.
4.4.8. Some judicial training institutions are successful in assessing regional training
needs as part of a nationwide training planning process. In Croatia, the Judicial
Academy has established a TNA mechanism, balancing centralised and decentralised
approaches. Because of the specific geographic context of the country, there are
differences in the training needs of judges and prosecutors from different regions (e.g.
maritime law, is specific to the coastal region, but not inland). For the same reason,
five regional training centres have been created under the Judicial Academy.
4.4.9. The Judicial Academy sends TNA questionnaires annually to stakeholders
(Ministry of Justice, universities, and members of the Programme Council) as well as
to the co-ordinators of the regional training centres (usually a judge and/or
prosecutor). The summarised questionnaires are also sent to the Programme Council
April 2014
Page 36 of 247

of the Academy to decide on the topics to be included in the next years programme.
The practice was adopted two years ago and allows the Academy to respond centrally
to regional diversity. As a result training is brought to the users, and most of the
training takes place at regional level. It could be considered as a Promising Practice
[See Fact Sheet No.5].
4.5 TNA at the functional level

TNA at the functional level assesses the competences required for the successful
performance of professional duties for a specific judicial profession or function. As part
of this approach, some of the judicial training institutions consider not only what
judges and prosecutors want for themselves but also what kind of justice (and
judges/prosecutors) the society needs/wants.
4.5.1. In Poland the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSIP) is
currently implementing a comprehensive TNA approach based on the creation of
competency profiles for judges and prosecutors. These profiles are created separately
for judges of different jurisdictions and tasks (criminal law judges, civil law judges,
commercial law judges, family law judges, prosecutors dealing with commercial cases,
judges/prosecutors as trainers and judges/prosecutors as mentors of trainees). These
competency profiles will serve as a basis for a 360 assessment of individual judges
and prosecutors using the project tool (see also Chapter Eight). The expected
outcome is to define the gap between the defined profile and factual competence as
the area for training.
The competence profiles comprise both broad, non-legal key competences and
professional roles/duties and hard law competences (knowledge in the field of law, of
the social and economic environment, etc.). The profiles contain guidelines on
expectations of ethical behaviour and attitudes of judges and prosecutors resulting
from current legal provisions and practice.
Profiles for judges, prosecutors, trainers and mentors working in the field of
commercial law are already prepared. Since the process is still ongoing and tangible
results are expected in the near future it can be considered as a Promising Practice
[See Fact Sheet No.6].
April 2014
Page 37 of 247

4.5.2. Some judicial training institutions use functional TNAs in order to face the
challenge of training a target group that is completely new to them.
In England and Wales the training of coroners18 was reassigned from the Ministry of
Justice to the Judicial College in 2012. The process coincided with the appointment of
a new Chief Coroner and the establishment of a new Coroner Training Committee, the
members of which were also involved in the selection of trainers and delivery of
training.
The Judicial College used a comprehensive functional TNA in order to assist the newlyappointed management and training bodies. An online questionnaire was developed
and all 1300 coroners and coroners officers were invited to comment on their training
needs. Members of previous coroners training groups developed a list of coroners
skills and responsibilities based on the job descriptions for coroner roles around the
country. The target group members were given three weeks to complete the
questionnaire. They were also asked to express their willingness to participate in
telephone interviews. A final report on coroners training needs was delivered to the
Chief Coroner and the Training Committee that served as a basis for the development
of training plans. The project team considers the approach to be an example of a Best
Practice [See Fact Sheet No.7].
4.6 TNA at the individual level

4.6.1. TNA at the individual level assesses the individual training needs of judges and
prosecutors. Some of the judicial training institutions consider individual training
needs of judges and prosecutors in the light of the systemic needs. Different sources
and methods are used in order to distinguish the objective training needs from their
training wishes.
Some other judicial training institutions have successfully designed and implemented
tools that consider not only the individual need of judges and prosecutors but the
degree of the need by assessing previous knowledge and skills.
A coroner is a judicial office holder who confirms and certifies the death of an individual within a
jurisdiction. A coroner may also conduct or order an investigation into the manner or cause of death, and
investigate or confirm the identity of an unknown person who has been found dead within the coroner's
jurisdiction. Responsibilities may include overseeing the investigation and certification of deaths related to
mass disasters that occur within the coroner's jurisdiction. A coroner's office typically maintains death
records of those who have died within the coroner's jurisdiction.
18
April 2014
Page 38 of 247

4.6.2. The Academy of European Law (ERA) has implemented an Evaluation and
Impact Assessment system of training that was developed for the workshops
implementing training modules19 in the area of EU family law for the European
Commission.
4.6.3. Two to three months before the implementation of each workshop an initial
needs assessment questionnaire and a registration form are sent to interested
participants. By means of this short questionnaire, the applicants provide an overview
of their professional background, their experience in the area of EU law and more
concretely in the area of EU family law. The questionnaire also includes questions on
why judges registered for the workshop and about what they expect from their
participation in the workshop. By evaluating this information, the training organisers
are able to assess which applicants are in the training target group and whose training
priorities best match the objectives of the programme.
4.6.4. This preliminary TNA assessment has a dual effect on the efficiency of training.
On the one hand, it leads to more precise selection of future applicants for training,
while at the same time providing a stronger focus on their individual professional
training needs.
4.6.5. It also represents a good example of the inter-connection between TNA and
Training Evaluation, since it is coupled with a twofold process of immediate and midterm evaluation of the effect of the training (see also Chapter Eight). The project
team considers this to be an example of Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No.8].
4.6.6. The European Institute for Public Administration (EIPA) has introduced
an Individual Learning Needs Analysis system. Once a given topic is identified as a
general training need, a training programme is designed to meet the need in question
and finally the programme is opened for registration. Two to four weeks before the
training, the registered participants are asked to complete a tailor-made questionnaire
with a two-fold objective: a) to assess the participants current level of knowledge and
experience on the topic, and b) to inquire about specific issues of interest or concern.
Currently, consideration is also being given to making the questionnaires available as
online surveys. The practice increases the efficiency of training in many ways: the
https://www.eracomm.eu/EU_Civil_Justice_Training_Modules/kiosk/courses/Family_Law_Module_1_EN/index.html
https://www.eracomm.eu/EU_Civil_Justice_Training_Modules/kiosk/courses/Family_Law_Module_2_EN/index.html
19
April 2014
Page 39 of 247

training is fine-tuned to the audience level; practical information and knowledge of
immediate interest to the participants is provided; answers to pre-posed questions
related to the everyday work of participants are given, and if necessary the
programme is adapted in order to meet specific and/or unforeseen individual needs.
It also presents a good example of the inter-connection between a TNA and an
Evaluation of Training as it is coupled with a mid-term evaluation of the effect of the
training through a web-based survey tool or telephone interviews (see also Chapter
Eight). The project team considers this to be an example of Best Practice [See Fact
Sheet No.9].
4.6.7. Finally, the project team was shown an interesting hybrid form of participatory
assessment that takes place in France. Trainee judges continuously assess the quality
of their initial training and make suggestions and proposals aimed at improving the
training system. Its challenge has been to develop a dynamic system allowing the
trainees to continuously monitor the implementation of the programmes, assess their
impact and share suggestions for improvements to the system under development as
well as the forthcoming programmes.
During the evaluation process all pre-service trainees are asked to fill in a detailed
questionnaire about the study period of their training at the Ecole National de la
Magistrature (ENM). This questionnaire is available online on ENMs website at the end
of the eight month study period in Bordeaux.
The questionnaire tends to ask trainees to assess their own improvement and
determine whether they have acquired the skills their training should have brought
them. Trainees are not compelled to fill out the questionnaire, but the importance of
such a questionnaire to help the ENM improve its training curricula/courses is
explained to them. It can take up to three hours to complete the questionnaire
because of the large number of questions. The answers are of course anonymised.
Around 75% of the trainees filled in the questionnaire last year.
4.6.8. The ENM has set up a mechanism for continuous assessment of its in-service
curricula. Each class of trainees is divided into small groups of approximately 20
people for workshop activities. In each small group a delegate is elected. The
delegates meet with the director of studies, without trainers, once a month to assess
and discuss the training and see how to improve it in real time. The director of studies
April 2014
Page 40 of 247

then drafts a report, which is disseminated among the trainers. So the content or form
of the training courses can be amended in the light of the delegates remarks.
Every year, three or four of the delegates of the small groups engage in a long-term
assessment process in co-operation with the director of studies. The task of those
delegates is to brainstorm the content of the training courses, the organisation of the
curricula and the pedagogy, and then make remarks or proposals to improve the study
period at the ENM. They begin their work around three months after the beginning of
the study period in the ENM. They do not stop this work at the end of the study
period, but work on during the court internship of 10 months which follows the study
period. This allows them to assess the content of the study period and the pedagogy
of the ENM once they are immersed in the courts and need to use what they have
learnt during the study period.
These delegates remain in touch with the director of studies, but also with the other
trainees of the class, who can let them know how to improve the training at the ENM.
While carrying out their court internships, the delegates also work with delegates of
the next class who are studying at the ENM at the same time. This enables the
director of studies to obtain detailed feedback on the study period.
This assessment tool has proven to be very efficient. Trainees generally bring very
interesting ideas, which are often integrated in the training curricula. For instance,
self-study periods were added to the curriculum last year [See Fact Sheet No. UP
1].
April 2014
Page 41 of 247

Chapter five: innovative curricula or training plan in any given area

5.1 Introduction
5.1.1. Training institutions were invited under this category to describe any Best,
Good or Promising Practices related to innovative curricula or training plans in any
given area used by their institution and/or in their country. Under this category the
experts were interested in the structure of the training activities, as well as the scope
of the Training Programme.
5.1.2. In 2010 the Council of Europe published Recommendation No. 12.20 Article 56
of this Recommendation, states as follows:
Judges should be provided with theoretical and practical initial and in-service training,
entirely funded by the state. This should include economic, social and cultural issues
related to the exercise of judicial functions.
5.1.3. As a number of the training practices put forward by respondents under this
category are consistent with Article 56, the project team decided to group these
practices together. The specific questions addressed by respondents that reflected
Article 56 requirements included: What is a good way to combine
substantive/procedural law training with training on non-legal topics? How can one
training activity be combined with another, or sequenced in such a way that positively
affects the impact or result of each activity? And how should a curriculum or training
plan be designed to suit the practical needs of the judges and prosecutors combined?
5.2 Main themes identified in the area of innovative curricula or training

plans
When the team analysed the responses provided by Member States under this
category a number of discrete themes emerged that were clustered under the
following set of topics:
Protecting Categories of Training Needs once Identified
Combining Different Disciplines in the Delivery of the Training of Judges
Simulations and Role Play Programmes
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on judges:
independence, efficiency and responsibilities, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 November
2010 at the 1098 meeting of the Ministers Deputies.
20
th
th
April 2014
Page 42 of 247

Leadership and Management Training
Comprehensive Packages for Delivering Large Scale Training on New Legislative
Programmes
Joint Delivery of Training Programmes with External Parties
Training of Workplace Mentor
5.3 Protecting categories of training needs once identified

It appears from the present study that there is a widespread consensus on the
necessity of training future judges and prosecutors in a way that combines both legal
training and non-legal training. One way of achieving this is proactively to generate a
greater awareness of the need for a wide diversity of training and the need to allocate
an equal percentage of training to each type of activity. This approach may, however,
still not provide formal ring-fencing procedures to avoid pre-eminent (or excessive)
concentration on legal activities, based on the consensus that judges and prosecutors
should be good legal professionals.
In the teams view, more proactive ring-fencing is necessary.
5.3.1. In Germany a complex and refined ring-fencing system has been in place since
2002, designed to protect as many of the training areas as possible, once identified
via a TNA. The project team commends the German model to other institutions as an
example of a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No.10] because it provides a clear
approach to the allocation of training resources and serves as a declaration of intent
concerning the need to keep a wide diversity of training activities21. Without such firm
and principled ring-fencing it is only too easy for programme planners to be deflected
from their core training mission by competing demands from other vested interests.
5.3.2. Under the German system, following extensive data collection on the perceived
training needs of the nations judges and prosecutors, percentages are allocated to
each area of training activity. The German respondent explains the system:
According to a formal resolution by the Programming Conference (i.e. the
national training steering committee) adopted in 2002, only 45-50% of our
A more complete version of both the rationale and the process of the German method were published in
2011 by the German Judicial Academy Programming Conference as an Issue Paper What Constitutes Good
Further Training?
The paper can be found on the International Organization for Judicial Training (IOJT) website:
http://www.iojt.org/library/Thesenpapier%20Gute%20Fortbildung%20Englisch%20Druckfreigabeversion.pd
f
21
April 2014
Page 43 of 247

courses can be legal specialist conferences, whereas 25-30% must adopt a
multi-disciplinary approach (law and medicine, law and Internet, law and
ethics, law and religion, etc.), whilst another 25% of the courses should be
geared to the improvement of the judges and prosecutors behavioural abilities
(i.e. psychological, social and methodological capacities, rhetoric,
communication, media training, memory training, vocal training, mediation,
psychology of testimony etc.).
5.3.3. The justification for this practice is that the programme planners not only take
into account as many detected training needs as possible, but also have a system in
place to maintain them as protected training categories.
The repartition rule (45%-30%-25%) reflects section 2 of the Administrative
Agreement of the Federation and the 16 States of 1 March 1993 on the German
Judicial Academy (GJA), which provides that the GJA should not only provide judges
and public prosecutors with further training in their respective areas of expertise, but
also with knowledge and experience of political, social, economic and other scholarly
developments. Deciding what disciplines the judiciary should engage with as part of
their training is in a permanent state of dialogue, and includes interactive seminars for
the improvement of the psychological, social and methodological capacities of the
judges and the prosecutors as being of vital importance in a rapidly-changing
professional environment.
The German training planners rely upon this framework to a significant degree in
framing and protecting the content of their annual programmes.
5.3.4. An alternative approach to this issue is to be found in England and Wales,
where the national training institution (the Judicial College) publishes as part of its
training strategy a statement on the required elements of its training activities as
follows:
5.3.5. The Judicial College strategy identifies three main elements for judicial training:
Substantive law, evidence and procedure and, where appropriate, subject
expertise.
The acquisition and improvement of judicial skills including, where appropriate,
leadership and management skills.
The social context within which judging occurs. Social context includes diversity
and equality.
April 2014
Page 44 of 247

These will be integral to the Colleges training programmes.
5.3.6. In the project teams view, the England and Wales approach provides another
example of a Best Practice, because it is direct, simple and offers a strong guideline
and framework for other countries to draft a planned programme of good activities
[See Fact Sheet No.10 i].
5.4 Combining different disciplines in the training of judges

This approach to training manifests itself in one of two ways. Firstly, if the
adjudicating tribunal contains a mix of judges and other specialists e.g. doctors or
accountants, it is clear that the value added by training judges and specialists
together is significant. Secondly, even where judges do not sit on panels with
specialist members, the project team found examples of training events bringing
together judges and external professionals in mutual discussion in a way that clearly
enriches the training environment.
5.4.1. The first example of a successful innovative programme adopting this approach
is to be found in Bulgaria.
In Bulgaria, a generic blended approach towards training is applied across the board in
many aspects of judicial training. In the words of the Bulgaria respondent:
It has become clear that the work of the judges and prosecutors cannot be
examined separately, as it intermingles with a variety of other professions,
legal and non-legal. It was inevitable for this to be reflected in the judicial
professional training.
5.4.2. They explained the genesis of this approach as follows:
Originally, at the very beginning of its existence, NIJ (Bulgaria National
Institute for Justice) delivered training events for specifically defined target
audiences, usually consisting of one specific legal group e.g. only judges, or
only court administration, or only prosecutors. Little by little this practice was
expanded to include: blended training groups within and outside of the
judiciary, blended training teams, blended training formats and blended
institutional training within and outside the judiciary, such as:
April 2014
Page 45 of 247

Blended training groups within and outside the judiciary:

judges
prosecutors
judicial investigators
judicial administration
investigating police
Ministry of Justice employees
bank legal experts
media experts/journalists
Blended training teams:
experienced and new trainers

Bulgarian trainers and foreign experts
judges and prosecutors and investigating police
judges and court administration
prosecutors and prosecution office administration
magistrates and experts (doctors, journalists, financial experts;
archaeologists, etc.)
Blended training formats within the same subject:

onsite training
distance learning
virtual forums
Blended institutional training, in partnership with:

Ministry of Justice (employees of the ministry, jointly with
representatives of the judicial system)
Ministry of Internal Affairs (investigating police)
Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (police)
Customs Agency (employees of the agency, jointly with representatives
of the judicial system)
Consulting firms
International Banking Institute of Bulgaria (bank legal experts and
representatives of the judicial system)
April 2014
Page 46 of 247

5.4.3. This approach has proven itself to be very successful, as it is valuable for every
target group of participants to be able to see the process from another professions
viewpoint. This allows all the players within and outside of the judicial community to
develop an understanding and a higher level of awareness of justice administration as
a whole. In the teams view, the Bulgarian approach is proven to be an example of a
Good Practice [See Fact Sheet No.11].
5.4.4. The second example of a successful innovative programme adopting this
approach is to be found in England and Wales, where judges and specialist nonjudge members train together in the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal.22 The
organisers explain that this programme is particularly useful in that it enables trainers
to use case-specific examples from their areas of work, so that realistic and detailed
discussion, both legal and subject-specific, can occur. The complex factual matters for
which specialist knowledge is required are explained and interpreted by the specialist
members (for example, doctors or accountants), while the judges bring their legal
knowledge to the case studies, so new law can be explored, discussed and integrated
into the specialist issues. Judges and specialist members devise and deliver the
training in tandem. The method is used in on-going training for medical and financial
members and has been used in induction training for accountants.
5.4.5. Why was this method adopted, and what benefits has it brought to judicial
training? The trainers explain that for judges in child support law, where examination
of personal and small company accounts is common, the judges may not have
sufficient understanding of how accounts operate to keep a focused control of the
hearing. Therefore, they decided to design a workshop for judges involving the
examination of a complex set of accounts. An accountant was brought into each
seminar group to talk the judges through the accounts at the outset, explain the
headings and processes and answer questions. In the case discussions that followed,
participants were able to ensure that no basic accounting errors flawed the legal
aspects of the discussion. This different version of small group training was highly
valued, both by the judge delegates and the accountant facilitators, who described
their own learning experience as positive. The accountant trainers stressed that by
participating in the delivery of training they felt part of a team, both as a group of
accountant facilitators and also as a team with the judges.
22
This tribunal adjudicates complex benefit claims (sickness, disability, child support etc.).
April 2014
Page 47 of 247

5.4.6. So successful was the format that most subsequent training has been based on
this format. A course to induct 12 new accountants (to sit on panels as specialist nonjudges) was devised and delivered by a judge and an accountant. The judge was able
to set out and explain the legal framework, with the accountant able to inject realism
into the process by using more problematic financial scenarios than the judge alone
would have been able to devise. The questions the accountant delegates posed as to
how their forensic skills might be used in particular circumstances could now be
answered, and the course was more challenging and of far more practical use than
previous induction programmes for accountants.
5.4.7. The on-going training of medical members in medical aspects of tribunal work
follows a similar pattern, whereby a doctor and a judge co-facilitate, so that the
medical issues may be examined in appropriate depth, but legal aspects can be
addressed as they occur in order to prevent any misunderstandings that might
otherwise affect or derail the training.
5.4.8. Although the trainers acknowledge that doubling up facilitators may add some
cost to the training, they argue that the enhancement of training, and in particular the
depth of the training experience, merits the extra cost.
5.4.9. Reflecting on the process, the England and Wales respondent wrote as
follows:
The apparent success of the format was captured initially in the positive
feedback to the practice in the post-event questionnaires. The real effectiveness
is thought to be in fostering a greater rapport between the judges and the nonlegal members, and a better understanding of and respect for the skills that each
professional discipline has and brings to the tribunal. This feeds into good
tribunal experiences on both sides of the table, as good teamwork will lead to
better outcomes both in terms of the efficiency of hearings and the user
experience. This is now considered to be the appropriate way to train where
possible, indeed, where different professional disciplines engage in a tribunal
hearing together it seems odd now to envisage wholly separate training. That is
not to say that there will never be subject-specific areas in which separate
professional training may be required, but where that is necessary it will
generally be done as a module at an otherwise integrated conference.
5.4.10. In the teams view, the England and Wales approach is an example of a
Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No.11 i].
April 2014
Page 48 of 247

5.4.11. A different manifestation of this theme is to be found in Italy, where a
training programme has been devised that seeks to extend the initial training of
judges to include an in-depth analysis of the social, political and economic context in
which the justice system operates.
5.4.12. This practice aims to introduce into the initial training curriculum content that
should make young judges and prosecutors better aware of the economic, social,
political and cultural context in which their judicial activity will take place. The
programme seeks explicitly to reflect the values set down in Article 56 of
Recommendation 12 (see at 5.1.2.).
5.4.13. The rationale for this approach, which has been incorporated directly into
Italian guidelines for initial training, is that it is important to use training to develop
economic, social, and cultural awareness amongst the judiciary in an epoch in which,
for a number of reasons (e.g. development of media and social media,
multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity, economic crises, and rapid developments in
biology and medicine), the application of the law cannot be separated from knowledge
of social sciences and other related disciplines.
5.4.14. The training practice involves the preparation of materials and organisation of
discussions between newly-recruited judges and prosecutors and experts (social
scientists such as sociologists, statisticians, journalists and media experts,
philosophers of the law). Topics covered include the image and perception of justice
and judges in society, the characteristics of social demands on the justice system,
political discussions about the reform of justice, the history of the judiciary, the
position of disadvantaged groups in society, judicial ethics and so forth. In some
sessions, discussions are triggered by showing a film dealing with aspects of justice,
which is then analysed with the assistance of a cinema expert.
5.4.15. The practice also includes the organisation of externships for trainees in
external agencies active in social areas linked to justice. Such agencies included
penitentiaries, the Bank of Italy (i.e. the banking and financial intermediation
supervising authority) and the State Attorneys offices (i.e. the agency responsible for
representation of the State and some public entities in legal disputes, as well as for
the provision of legal advice to such agencies). Externships have also been organised
in the clerking and secretarial services of courts and prosecution offices, so that
April 2014
Page 49 of 247

trainees can gain a grasp of justice from the perspective of those who work with
judges and prosecutors.
5.4.16. Appraisal of the programme has been conducted by a combination of detailed
feedback questionnaires within the School and some of the co-operating agencies (e.g.
the Bank of Italy) have also carried out their own independent assessments.
5.4.17. There was some initial resistance to the introduction of these practices. For
example, there were objections to judges and prosecutors spending two weeks within
the penitentiary circuit in case it encouraged too much subjectivity in their approach
to justice. The programme has, however, received a generally positive response from
both the expert trainers and the trainees, who particularly appreciate the fact that the
exposure of initial trainees to the external world is systematic rather than occasional.
In this way, judges and prosecutors in the early stages of their training can acquire a
deeper understanding of the realities of criminal sanctions; of the fiscal crisis, financial
governance and banking supervision; of the deep reasons for the inefficiencies of
justice, and of the social consequences of multi-culturalism, of multi-ethnicity and of
poverty.
5.4.18. In the teams view, this programme is an example of a Best Practice [See
Fact Sheet No.12].
5.5 Simulations and role play programmes

5.5.1. Simulated hearings and role play exercises are often used as a part of the
curricula and/or training plan for the delivery of training for judges and prosecutors. A
range of methods is used to ensure that the live experience of simulated adjudication
enhances the skills of participant trainees. As such, simulations and role play exercises
fall outside the projects terms of reference as they are increasingly used as a
standard training practice.
The responses to the questionnaire did, however, include two examples of simulated
hearings (one in England and Wales and the other in Hungary) that the team finds
to be of such originality and effectiveness that they warrant the description of Best
Practice. Further examples of the creative use of simulations in the context of
transnational training are described in Chapter Seven.
April 2014
Page 50 of 247

5.5.2. The first was the Continuation Training by Mock Hearing in the Property
Chamber of England and Wales. In developing this programme of mock hearing
seminars the Property Chamber identified a number of areas of jurisdiction and
practice in which training was required. They decided to incorporate the relevant law
topics into a scripted mock hearing of an application. Delegates working in groups of
five or six were asked to determine the issues raised throughout the hearing in
syndicate groups. Each of the topics was then addressed in turn as part of the training
event, through the scripted hearing accompanied by small formal presentations and a
plenary discussion. As well as addressing issues of law, the mock hearing was scripted
to demonstrate issues of case management and the conduct of a hearing, using
interactive role play that encourages a great deal of spontaneous intervention.
5.5.3. The continuation training is in the form of a two-day seminar. Delegates at the
seminars are a mixture of lawyers, valuers, other property professionals and lay
members but they attend the training event in their capacity as judicial office holders.
They operate in various panel subjects. There is also a wide range of experience and
expertise among delegates. Wishing to avoid subjecting delegates to two days of
formal lectures, the training team also wanted to make the training as topical and
relevant as possible. The areas of case management, receiving further information,
and of specialised law and practice in the context of a tribunal hearing were given
special importance in devising the script. This also enabled the trainers to use a
variety of training methods, which made the seminar more interesting and enjoyable
for delegates.
5.5.4. The mock hearing is scripted by experienced trainers, to ensure that all of the
issues are adequately covered. The players are the trainers, supported by two
delegate trainees nominated by their peers to sit on the mock tribunal.
5.5.5. Delegates complete a feedback form after each seminar. It was reported to the
project team that the feedback was entirely positive. The opportunity to observe and
participate in a tribunal dealing with these particular topics, then to discuss the issues
in syndicate with other members and receive moderated relevant training, with the
added opportunity for plenary discussion, was seen to be highly effective. Delegates
also reported that having the opportunity to discuss Best Practice and pool knowledge
and experience was extremely beneficial. It also helped members to maintain a degree
of consistency. In the teams view this form of training is an example of a Best
Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 13].
April 2014
Page 51 of 247

5.5.6. The second interesting programme in this category is run by the Academy of
Justice in Hungary, and consists of an intensive, complex modular five-day training
event for the training of court secretaries (assistant judges). Court secretaries have
to practise in a court for at least one year to be eligible to apply for a judge's position.
During this period of preliminary practice they have to take part in obligatory training
sessions organised by the Academy. The main training event is the four times oneweek modular training programme, which consists of the following modules: Ethics
and Judgecraft, Civil Law, Criminal Law, and a mock trial session. The five-day mock
trial session takes place at the Hungarian Academy of Justice, where two training
rooms are permanently furnished as courtrooms. The court secretaries who take part
in the training work on the basis of a case study. What is probably unique about this
mock trial training approach (in addition to its length) is that the participants play all
the roles on a rotating basis (e.g. in the case of a criminal procedure the victim, the
accused person, witnesses, the defence lawyer, the prosecutor and the judge (panel).
This is a true example of intensive learning by doing. The mock trial sessions are
video-recorded, played back to the participants and analysed with the help of the tutor
judges and psychologists. At the end of the training each participant receives a DVD
containing his or her 'first court trial'.
5.5.7. Mock trial sessions have been regularly used in the past six years as part of the
court secretaries' modular training. Over the past years the methodology has been
refined. The feedback of junior judges who participated in such mock trials when they
were court secretaries indicates that they found it a very good preparation tool to help
them handle difficult situations in the courtroom.
5.5.8. The project team agrees with the Hungarian respondents suggestion that
within the specific context of the need to provide an intensive training course that
rapidly exposes new trainees who have common training needs to the entire
adjudicative process, Hungary provides an example of a Best Practice [See Fact
Sheet No. 14].
5.5.9. The third interesting programme in this category is run by the National School
for the Judiciary in France (ENM). The teaching method is framed around a pair of
trainers, consisting of a judge and a psychologist. For chamber hearings, the
psychologist will be a specialist in issues relating to children, families or vulnerable
people. The sessions concentrate not only on the procedural framework for speaking
at a hearing (i.e. the ethical and professional rules), but also on the basic rules of
April 2014
Page 52 of 247

conducting a verbal examination: the need for objectivity, creating a relationship with
the defendant and the parties, listening, ensuring a professional attitude, and
concluding the examination. The psychologist will use his or her professional insight to
comment on the elements of any infra-verbal behaviour that can interfere with the
smooth running of the hearing, and can thereby create unforeseen tensions in the
conduct of a hearing.
5.5.10. Each session is filmed in order to enable participants to identify their qualities
and weaknesses during the debriefing. Each simulation lasts a full day. The main
objective of this teaching sequence is to familiarise the trainee judges with different
interview techniques relevant to the conduct of a criminal hearing, making oral
requisitions and chairing hearings. In the teams view this form of training is an
example of a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 15].
5.6 Leadership and management training

5.6.1. Increasingly, judges have to perform leadership and management tasks as part
of their daily work in addition to carrying out their judicial functions. A number of
jurisdictions have grasped the reality that judges are not necessarily good at
management. Indeed some of the skills required of a judge, such as making quick
decisions, do not necessarily square with those of a good manager! Because
leadership and management training is a relative newcomer to judicial training, most
of the examples that we have selected fall into the category of Promising Practices.
The one exception is the programme in France delivered by the National School for
the Judiciary (ENM), which the project team believes to be exceptional and a clear
example of a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 16].
5.6.2. The establishment in France of a progressive series of training courses on
managerial functions is the result of a decision to upgrade the pre-existing various
training modules that were disparate, poorly defined and lacking in any clear
relationship to one another. A rationalisation was undertaken in 2008 by ENM, with
the aim of creating a complete and comprehensive suite of training activities across a
range of interrelated courses. This reflects the fact that the functions of judges in
France had evolved significantly over the last 15 years. In relation to the size of the
country, France has relatively few judges, and in addition judges play a significant role
in running and managing the court systems. Most senior judges are now obliged to
April 2014
Page 53 of 247

demonstrate specific skills in administration, budget management, change
management, and the functions of human resources management, communications,
social dialogue and performance evaluation. The ENM has responded to these needs
by developing an impressive, complex series of training activities aimed at ensuring
that judges are equipped to carry out their management functions effectively. Judges
have responded with enthusiasm to the range of management courses on offer. For
example, in 2013, 928 judges were (voluntarily) enrolled on judicial management
courses, which amounts to 11.5% of the countrys serving judges.
5.6.3. French judges are expected to engage in five days of continuous training every
year. They select their courses from the training prospectus published annually,
covering eight general themes. One theme is Administration of Justice, and includes
such topics as the tools of management (including running budgets), change
management, human resource and risk management, managing stress, techniques of
evaluation, measurements of efficiency, and the interface between judicial and public
policy. Courses typically run for three days, although one course runs for 21 days,
spread over seven modules. The above suites of courses are available to all French
judges on a self-selecting basis.
5.6.4. In addition to the above suite of programmes the ENM offers two further
programmes designed for specific managerial purposes. The first programme is a
bespoke series of courses designed specifically to assist judges appointed to a
particular management post and includes management training for new Secretary
Generals, Judges as Departmental Heads within a Jurisdiction, New Heads of
Jurisdiction, New Heads of Jurisdiction: One Year Later, and a Training Plan of Heads
of Jurisdiction addressed to judges with at least three years of seniority in their role as
head of the jurisdiction.
5.6.5. The second programme is the most recent, and was inaugurated three years
ago. It is a programme designed to prepare judges interested in future management
functions within a judicial entity (department heads, head of jurisdiction etc.) who do
not yet hold such positions of responsibility. It consists of a broad training programme
dealing with major institutional, administrative and societal issues during a cycle of 10
modules on three days per month. The programme is called the Cycle Approfondi
dEtudes Judiciare (CADEJ). It has a number of unique features:
April 2014
Page 54 of 247

The programme is limited to 75 participants per year of whom 60 are judges,
and the remaining 15 a mix of professionals working in other areas of the
justice system (senior courts administrative staff, members of the
gendarmerie, the prison service, and the finance departments).
The programme lasts a full 12 months and participants attend the course for
three consecutive days per month.
The three-day events consist solely of plenary sessions addressed by a wide
range of experts from a number of different disciplines by way of lectures and
round table discussions. The topics in 2012 included judicial authority and the
state, justice and security, justice and society, change management, financing
justice, international justice and so on.
The approach to all topics is at a high intellectual level and often of a
theoretical nature, and debates focus more on broad philosophical ideas,
management theory and blue sky thinking, than practical analysis. The
emphasis is on stimulating big ideas.
The programme also divides the delegates into small groups who work together
throughout the year researching a broad practice issue of a jurisprudential
nature (access to justice, budget control, deontological issues etc.), and
present their findings to the whole group at the end of the year. The group
topics are chosen by the ENM management, and are not selected by the group.
5.6.6. Crucial to such a course is ensuring that the right people attend, and that the
selection of these people is carried out via a transparent and fair process. If this were
not the case, obvious political sensitivities would emerge, with a possible perception
that the leadership and management judges for the future justice system were being
pre-selected. These fears have been largely removed by the establishment of a
monitoring and selection committee that gathers together the representative bodies of
the Judiciary, including representatives of the Higher Council of the Judiciary, the
Ministry of Justice, Conference of Chief Justices, Attorneys General, presidents and
prosecutors and judicial trade unions.
5.6.7. In the course of the study visit, the team was told that analysis of the
evaluation forms on all of these courses has shown a high level of satisfaction. The
CADEJ course is still in its infancy, however, so at this stage the team describes it as a
Promising Practice (within an overall Best Practice programme) [See Fact Sheet
No. 16].
April 2014
Page 55 of 247

5.6.8. Finland has adopted a system of management and leadership training,
providing continuous management training every year to all levels of leadership in
their organisations. The main target of the management training has been, a) to adapt
the leaders to the management by results system operating in the state
administration, and b) to strengthen their competences in leadership, personnel
management, creating a good work climate etc. In addition, senior judges have also
been given training in the competences necessary to lead the application of law by
setting the goals for each court with their resident judges, including such matters as
case allocation, balancing the workload of judges, the need for uniformity in the
handling times of cases and the application of law, and dealing with independence
issues.
Two further approaches to leadership training are being developed:
a) A system of leadership and management coaching and supervision, the
overall objective being to create conditions conducive to good workplace
culture and well-being. The aim is the creation of an interactive
management culture. The specific objective is to develop leadership
through inspiring people. Leadership training is also designed to promote
good network management between judges and the other professionals
with whom they interact in the course of this work. This programme lasts
about seven months and consists of six classroom teaching days, plus a
number of further days of networked coaching activity.
b) Mentoring is a key objective of the new management culture of the
administration of justice sector. Mentoring in Finland is a goal-oriented way
of monitoring a judges work and professional skills development. The
learning method of mentoring is compact, unique and personal. Mentors
are aware that they are sometimes dealing with very confidential matters
by knowingly and purposefully supporting the development of another
human being in his or her career, both professionally and as a person.
In the teams view this example from Finland provides evidence of a Promising
Practice that can be applied to training judges and prosecutors [See Fact Sheet No.
17 ].
5.6.9. The project team also found other less comprehensive variations of the French
approach to the topic of leadership and management in a few other jurisdictions. They
can be described as Promising Practices, because of the relatively early stage of
their development in Belgium, England and Wales, EIPA and The Netherlands.
April 2014
Page 56 of 247

5.6.9.1. In Belgium, a course and coaching in project management for judges,
prosecutors and court staff members has been developed to encourage better cooperation and exchange of information between members of the judiciary and their
staff members. After being trained in project management techniques, the participants
receive customised coaching in order to specify their objectives and build up their own
project management plan. After a few months of practical work on the project
management plan, the projects are presented by participants at a forum with a view
to the projects becoming new benchmarks for Good Practices. The ultimate aim of this
course is to make the justice system more efficient by using better processes and
appropriately adapted management tools. The team sees this as another Promising
Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 17 i].
5.6.9.2. In England and Wales, the Judicial College is in the process of developing a
leadership and management development (LMD) programme for judges in all
jurisdictions who have leadership and management responsibilities (Leadership and
Management Judges: LMJs). Following consultation with a large number of senior
judges, judicial human resources and external bodies, the first programme was
launched in 2014. Each programme will last for approximately four months and is
expected to run twice a year. With a capacity for 25 judges per programme, the
programme is fully funded by the Judicial College and priority for places will be given
to those judges who have been recently appointed to leadership or management roles.
Newly-appointed LMJs will be required to complete all three modules of the
programme within one year, whilst existing LMJs may attend any modules of the
programme. The modules are as follows:
Module 1: Understanding your Organisation, Communicating and Working with
other Organisations
Module 2: People Management
Module 3: Managing Yourself as Leader
The emphasis of the programme is on practical learning and the application of key
leadership and management skills and attributes. Full use will be made of online
resources and internal (both judicial and training) expertise to ensure optimum
relevance of materials and cost efficiency. The programme will comprise:
A one-day face-to-face workshop to launch each of the three modules
April 2014
Page 57 of 247

A number of work-based and online activities for each module to complement
and apply what is learned in the workshop
A trained mentor will be offered to each newly-appointed judicial
leader/manager for up to 12 months. This mentor will be a judge with
recognised leadership/management ability
The team considers this to be a Promising Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 17 ii].
Plans are underway for an online programme designed for judges who aspire to a
leadership or management role in the future. The aim of the programme will be to
provide information about the nature of such roles and the skills and qualities
required. It will also provide an opportunity for judges to reflect on their own
readiness, skills and development plans for such leadership or management roles.
5.6.9.3. EIPA has developed training programmes which combine EU law topics with
topics related to the organisation and management of justice institutions (courts and
public prosecutor offices). According to the respondent, the programme is composed
of a series of seminars related to the introduction of Total Quality Management (TQM)
into the judiciary and is designed for court presidents, chief prosecutors and heads of
administration. With the overall objective of introducing TQM into the courts and public
prosecutor services, the participants review the situation in their institutions, including
how the work of their institutions is perceived by their client, the press, politicians,
etc., and whether there is a need for improvements to current procedures and
practices. These programmes are divided into different levels (i) awareness-raising;
(ii) specific TQM (self-assessment tools and how to use them); (iii) how to plan and
implement plans for improvement; (iv) how to ensure continuous TQM improvements.
The team also considers this to be an example of a Promising Practice [See Fact
Sheet No. 17 iii].
5.6.9.4. In the course of the past few years, the Training and Study Centre for the
Judiciary (SSR) in the Netherlands has developed a comprehensive curriculum of
leadership and management development programmes, both for the Dutch courts and
the public prosecution service. This was at the request of, and in close consultation
and co-operation with, the Council for the Judiciary and the Board of Procurators
General. Previously, management and leadership training programmes took place
within the Dutch judiciary and prosecution service on an ad hoc basis and without any
involvement on the part of SSR.
April 2014
Page 58 of 247

Nowadays, there is a complete set of training programmes in place for different target
groups at different levels within the Dutch judiciary. An important added value of the
involvement of SSR is that SSR being the national and only training institution of the
judiciary in the Netherlands can bring in their expert knowledge of judicial
organisation in the Netherlands and their knowledge of how to set up training curricula
for this specific target group. External trainers are involved for certain specific topics,
but the overall design of the programmes lies with SSR.
The programmes are aimed at various management levels within the court system and
the prosecution service: board members and high level managers from courts and
central supporting organisations of the Dutch court system; heads of court
departments (chambers); heads of teams (both in courts and in prosecutors offices);
heads of operational affairs (within the prosecution service); as well as at future or
potential presidents of court and board members and future heads of departments.
The training programmes focus on hard management and leadership skills (such as
financial management), but the skills to develop personal leadership and thus
personal development also form an important part of the curriculum. Personal
leadership is already firmly embedded in the new initial training programme for
judges. This includes peer group consultation and personal coaching (both by
colleague judges and external coaches).
An important notion behind the leadership and management training programmes is
the idea of collectivity and co-operative identity. In addition to the importance of the
training programme for the individual members, the programmes aim to strengthen
judicial organisation while developing a common and shared ambition, vision and set
of principles. Collectivity also means that the training methods used underline the
importance of sharing knowledge and the power of learning from ones colleagues. As
the programmes are still being evaluated, the team also considers them to be
examples of a Promising Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 17 iv].
5.7 Comprehensive packages for delivering large-scale training on new

legislative programmes
5.7.1. When confronted with large-scale legislative changes or significant evolution in
case-law or when a new important international treaty starts to apply in a jurisdiction,
training institutions have to find a way to train large categories of people quickly and
April 2014
Page 59 of 247

effectively on these matters. This training has to take place in a timely, uniform way
and must also be cost-effective.
5.7.2. One common response to this challenge is to offer a combination of conferences
and modern tools for disseminating the information, for example via the Internet. A
good example of this approach is to be found in Romania, where it has been
necessary to retrain the entire judiciary in four new Codes: the Civil Code, the Civil
Procedure Code, the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. This approach
began in 2011 with the creation by NIM of a continuous training programme. This
major training challenge had to be organised in such a way as to follow a logical order,
via a structured training strategy with clear steps and stages.
5.7.3. Bearing in mind the fact that the new provisions contained huge volumes of
information that had to reach every judge and prosecutor, and also taking into
consideration the importance of finding the right learning process, NIM drafted a
unitary, centralised strategy. The first step was to identify trainers who were able to
deliver seminars on the new Codes. Once established, the network of trainers
organised concentric circles of decentralised seminars that were continuously
enlarged. The training curricula were continuously updated. National conferences were
organised at centralised level, with online broadcasts and video recordings delivered at
decentralised seminars for all judges across Romania.
5.7.4. Training materials were simultaneously developed and enlarged, based upon
the lecturers presentations and the debates that took place during the conferences.
The debates were transcribed by NIM staff and included in handbooks that with each
lecturers permission were published on the NIMs website. e-Learning modules for
the new Codes have also been developed. In addition, NIM also organised train the
trainer activities. These trainers were then used in seminars also organised by the
NIM that resulted in more than 1,000 judges and prosecutors engaging in training
activities at decentralised level.
5.7.5. Taking into account the results so far (the high number of judges and
prosecutors familiarised with the new Codes, the training carried out by both judges
and prosecutors and by other legal professionals) and the general availability of the
information gathered in these programmes, the team were of the opinion that this a
Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 18 and No. 25].
April 2014
Page 60 of 247

5.7.6. Another solution to a similar challenge was found in France, where the ENM
have adopted a system of multi-dimensional support of a legislative reform that may
involve a significant number of judges. In France, it appears that some legislative
changes have required an immediate application, thus resulting in the need to quickly
train a large number of judges. The ENM established a mechanism that combined a
face-to-face approach with an e-Learning method.
5.7.7. The activities are organised around four main themes:
The establishment of national continuous training in Paris, opened to a large
number of judges and to the partners of the judicial institution affected by the
reform, preceded by detailed information addressed to the heads of the Court
on the nature of this session.
The design of an e-Learning course on the reform, uploaded onto ENMs
Intranet and made accessible to all judges and clerks of France at the time of
the adoption of the reform.
Development of paper documentation and a CD-ROM including fact sheets.
The organisation of follow-up decentralised continuous training courses, i.e. in
the nine courts of appeal where the ENMs regional training coordinators carry
out their duties.
5.7.8 According to the information provided by the ENM:
Judges were very pleased with the combination of various training tools
available to them. All e-Learning users have commented upon the importance
and richness of this training tool, which is accessible at any time, as the
training time frame was particularly tight.
The training helped to raise the awareness of judges on how they are perceived
by users of the justice system. Representatives of users affected by the
reforms were invited to observe training sessions.
5.7.9. Taking into account the multi-faceted organisation of these complex training
programmes and their effective application in the French system, the team believes
that this constitutes a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 18 i].
5.7.10. Another way of addressing the same need is presented by ERA, which at
intervals organises large-scale series of seminars in the Member States aimed at
raising the national judiciarys awareness of a major new piece of legislation at EU
level.
April 2014
Page 61 of 247

5.7.11. This approach was designed to tackle the training of judges after the adoption
of a major EU legislative change, which may assign a new role to that of the national
judge. This practice is used in an international environment and allows a rapid and
better implementation of the new legislation, which is intended to develop a
harmonised interpretation of these rules throughout the European Union.
ERA comment:
For example, this practice was implemented by ERA immediately after the
adoption of the EC Regulation 1/2003 introducing the new Competition Law
regime across the EU. Even before the entry into force of the new regulation
in May 2004, ERA started offering basic training for the judiciary in various
Member States. A kind of standardised programme was drafted and adapted
to the specific needs of each judiciary. ERA has continued this large-scale
training since then, although the focus has recently shifted from basic
training to more advanced or sectorial training. Basic training on this topic
has now been replaced by a basic stand-alone e-Learning course on the ERA
website and available to everyone, in particular national judges.23
5.7.12 The specificity of this approach lies essentially in the international environment
in which the ERA operates and the large-scale series of seminars which were cofounded by the European Commissions Directorate General for Competition and the
commitment of 14 EU Member States. As a result, some 30 national training seminars
have been organised for the judiciary of Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic,
Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,

Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom since 2005. The team concurs with the
opinion of the ERA that this is a Good Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 18 ii].
5.8 Joint delivery of training programmes with external partners
5.8.1. There are some areas of expertise that are closely connected with practical
issues in the daily work of judges and prosecutors and which are not best presented
by legal practitioners. Such areas include forensic sciences and communication skills.
Forensic professionals may be better placed to teach topics related to their domain.
Expanding on this idea, some schools presented their experiences of collaboration with
external partners, for example, the local Opera House or Institute of Forensic
Research.
23
http://www.era-comm.eu/elearning/comp/index.php
April 2014
Page 62 of 247

5.8.2. An example of such co-operation comes from Portugal. The Centre for Judicial
Studies (CEJ) has recently included in its annual plan of activities for continuous
training an innovative initiative on the topic of Image and voice, rhetoric and
argumentation.
5.8.3. The Portuguese respondent to the Project described the value of the course as
follows:
As leading figures in judicial hearings and audiences that are usually open to
the public, judges and prosecutors should improve the way they
communicate with the other participating parties in any judicial activity. In
fact, while expressing themselves orally in the court room a public space
judges are also playing an important role in making justice more
understandable to ordinary citizens.
5.8.4. A partnership agreement has been signed between the CEJ and the So Carlos
National Theatre (the Opera House in Lisbon) for this particular event. The course
takes place in its auditorium and on the stage. The trainers are professors at the High
College of Theatre.
5.8.5. The feedback from the participants on this experience-based course indicates a
very good level of satisfaction and a very positive evaluation.
5.8.6. In the teams opinion, the Portuguese collaboration with the Opera House is a
good example in this category. The experience-based courses led by respected
professionals outside the area of justice are a good tool for improving the skills of the
legal profession and it is an appropriate method for training adults. Taking into
account the fact that the CEJ have not presented consolidated results to date, the
team believes that this is a Promising Practice that is worthy of further development
and study [See Fact Sheet No. 19].
5.8.7. Another area of training that needs to be developed together with specialists
from outside the strictly legal domain is that of forensic practice. The training offered
in Poland on the medico-legal and forensic aspects of the acquisition and use of
biological traces of evidence provides a well-organised example of co-operation
between prosecutors and forensic scientists. According to our respondent:
April 2014
Page 63 of 247

Contemporary lawsuits are often informed by legal experts opinions. In
addition to the traditional expertise that has operated for years in criminal
proceedings (e.g. fingerprint or toxicological expertise), new forms of
expertise have recently appeared in criminal proceedings such as DNA
analysis, although this has not been applied before on a large scale. On the
one hand, this new training activity explains and clarifies the capacity of new
methods of expertise, but on the other hand it also discusses the most
problematic practical issues of proper communication between the experts
and their clients. These issues are discussed in the context of frequent
inquiries and decisions regarding the admission of an experts evidence as
well as the interpretation of expert application made by all participants in
the judicial proceeding.
5.8.8. The training activity is targeted at criminal judges and public prosecutors in the
form of seminar sessions. In Poland, there have been many situations where the
professional participants in the hearing have not been able to apply their expertise
appropriately. In response to this problem, a seminar series has been devised in order
to enhance the quality of future criminal proceedings. The seminars aim to provide
criminal judges and public prosecutors with a systematic knowledge of the evidential
value of biological traces and promote the wider use of such methods of expertise in
criminal proceedings. The basic subject matter of the seminar and key problems have
been designed in consultation with expert witnesses.
5.8.9. Training activities are divided into four modules covering a range of issues,
including forensic biology, forensic toxicology, the science of genetics, science in
criminology, science and forensic medicine, and using evidence of biological traces in
criminal proceedings. The specificity of this practice is that emphasis is placed on
communication between the judge and the prosecutor on the one hand and between
the judge and the expert on the other, as well as on the errors and difficulties in the
assessments. Communication and understanding information is the key driver.
5.8.10. The activities take place at the premises of the National School of Judiciary
and Public Prosecution in Poland (KSSIP) and consist of four sessions, each lasting two
days. The courses involve experienced prosecutors and forensic specialists,
criminology experts from the Institute of Forensic Research in Cracow, a major
research institution in Poland. The lecturers are very experienced in conducting
professional training for the judiciary. According to the Polish respondent:
April 2014
Page 64 of 247

This training activity is very popular, as demonstrated in numerous official
writings and demands for repeat sessions. Therefore, reserve lists of new
participants are regularly created. Due to the fact that training is expensive,
the KSSIP do not have the financial capacity to operate more than one edition
of this training annually.
The team considers this to be an example of a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No.
20].
5.9 Training workplace mentors

Providing newly-trained judges and prosecutors with workplace mentors is fairly
common across the European Union. We offer some examples of different approaches
to this practice.
5.9.1. In Bulgaria, during the compulsory training phase, junior judges and junior
prosecutors are exposed to both theory and practice, as provided to them by acting
judges or trainers. This practice provides the junior judges with valuable, practical
knowledge and skills, assists their smooth transition into the judicial system and
delivers on-going monitoring of the young judges professional development.
Ultimately, it contributes to the judiciary being refreshed by the advent of younger,
skilled professionals.
5.9.2. In the course of their nine months of training at the Bulgarian training
institution (NIJ), the junior judges sit interim tests and participate in mock trials.
When they begin their active professional work, they still need the expert guidance of
a mentor to facilitate their integration into the judiciary and provide them with
practical tools to handle their day-to-day obligations. NIJ is mandated by law to follow
up the performance of its graduates during their first two years within the judiciary.
The mentors are trained by NIJ and periodically meet together to exchange Good
Practices on how to keep the performance of the junior judges and prosecutors in line
with the initial training received at NIJ.
5.9.3. This system also provides NIJ with feedback information about the adequacy of
the initial training programme (content, organisation, etc.) when faced with the
demands of real life. The mentors are also involved in the evaluation of junior judges
and prosecutors, which is carried out by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). The
mentors submit reports to the NIJ on a quarterly basis detailing their activities as a
April 2014
Page 65 of 247

mentor, the cases they have examined, events attended, observations on the
mentees performance etc. The NIJ Initial Training Department places all data received
in the personal file of each junior magistrate and submits it to SJC.
5.9.4. In the Netherlands, the initial training programme for judges and prosecutors
is a dual-training programme i.e. trainees work at a court or prosecutors office and
only come to the training centre at regular intervals for short training courses. This
means that an important part of the actual training takes place at the workplace itself.
This learning by doing is carefully guided by a team of workplace trainers and
mentors who are judges and prosecutors who use part of their working hours to act as
trainers/mentors to a number of trainees.
5.9.5. The workplace trainers and mentors play a crucial role. They instruct, train,
coach and guide the trainee, and provide feedback on their performance. It is,
therefore, important that they themselves are well-trained and well-equipped to carry
out this role. To this end, SSR has developed a varied programme of courses and
other activities for these workplace trainers and mentors aimed both at beginners and
those with more experience. The programme includes coaching, peer consultation
sessions and master classes. In addition, in 2012 a digital handbook for workplace
trainers and mentors was published. SSR regularly organises a Day of the Workplace
event for these workplace trainers and mentors, which enables them to share
experiences and strengthen their networks.
5.9.6. Similar initiatives exist in other countries of the European Union but the team
offers the examples above as templates of Good Practice in the area [See Fact
Sheet No. 21 and 21 i].
April 2014
Page 66 of 247

Chapter six: innovative training methodology

6.1 Introduction
Within this category, the project team was looking for Best, Good and Promising
innovative training methodologies that most effectively demonstrate successful
learning outcomes and asking the question: under which circumstances and for which
target groups?
Note on face-to-face training

Whereas face-to-face training is no longer the exclusive format for judicial training in
Europe e-Learning and other distance learning formats are now widely used it still
remains the principal method used to stimulate learning experiences in the judiciary.
Therefore, the methodology for this type of training is of paramount importance.
Amongst the different principles the team adopted when identifying Best, Good and
Promising Practices in this area, the experts noted that:
Improving face-to face teaching and learning is a response to the need to
promote more interactive learning in a profession in which training and selftraining are perceived as a necessity.
New face-to-face training methodologies are most likely to assist judges in
discussing not only the law, but also judgecraft and helping them to learn
management skills.
Face-to-face methods are especially necessary in areas in which distance
learning methods are less effective and in which interaction is needed at a
fairly high level of interpersonal contact (e.g. sentencing, confidential expertise
such as in investigation techniques, train-the-trainer strategies).
6.2 Using modern technology-based tools for training

From the answers received, the team identified several training methods using these
tools:
Online training or e-Learning
Blended training (a combination of distance learning and face-to-face learning)
Using an Extranet and discussion forum in a distance learning portal
April 2014
Page 67 of 247

Extensive use of online podcasting and video-conferencing
The Live Case teaching method.
6.2.1. Use of online training or e-Learning

6.2.1.1. The use of online training or e-Learning is becoming increasingly important to
the development of judicial training in Europe. Financial constraints are making it
more and more difficult in most countries to maintain the customary level of
traditional face-to-face training initiatives that involve high travel and accommodation
costs. e-Learning is more cost effective, as it makes it easier for judges to reconcile
their professional duties with attendance at training sessions. In addition, the unified
design of online training initiatives, if well done, can ensure a high standard of content
that repeated local initiatives cannot always ensure. Standardisation also makes it
easier to plan e-Learning initiatives.
The benefits of e-Learning are now well established, and include the following:
It enables a large number of people simultaneously to follow the same training
session.
It allows judges and prosecutors to retrieve training materials digitally at a
time that suits them, without disrupting their daily work.
It avoids time-consuming travel that causes unnecessary fatigue.
It allows financial savings on travel, meals, and accommodation.
It allows for the rapid organisation of training programmes, thereby avoiding a
heavy organisational structure.
6.2.1.2. In Bulgaria, since 2009 the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been
providing e-Learning through its Distance Learning Portal and Discussion Forum, in
addition to its Extranet24. The distance learning courses usually last three to four
months. During that time the participants are in online contact with one another and
with the trainers. They can access the information from any convenient location,
allowing them to better manage the time they are willing to dedicate to training and
exercise more control over the learning process. Courses usually contain reading
materials, presentations, case studies and short video clips. Assignments and tests are
given by the trainers and submitted by the participants exclusively online.
The first pilot e-Learning course was delivered by NIJ in 2007 under a twinning project with the Judicial
School of Spain, using the Distance Learning platform of the latter.
See point 6.2.3.1 for a presentation of the Extranet.
24
April 2014
Page 68 of 247

6.2.1.3. The Discussion Forum is an integral part of the distance learning training and
provides for discussion of topical questions referring to the subject matter of the
course. Where necessary, the Forum may be used as the place for further discussion
of the case studies and practical examples dealt with in the training modules. Active
participation in the Discussion Forum during the training is among the criteria for the
award of the Certificate of Completion. The practice was initially combined with a
meeting of the participants and the trainers at the beginning and end of the training,
but this has been suspended for financial reasons.
6.2.1.4. Cost-effectiveness is one of the main advantages of this practice and it is
estimated that, once established, it costs three to four times less than face-to-face
training. The Distance Learning Portal and Discussion Forum are both based on opensource free software (currently Moodle 2.6). Two full-time IT staff members are in
charge of the adaptation, providing regular software upgrades and maintaining the
whole system, including the Extranet. The only other costs are those incurred by the
development and delivery of the training courses, which are comparable with those for
face-to-face training sessions. The latter are in fact much more expensive because of
the additional costs for transportation and accommodation of participants and trainers.
6.2.1.5. Distance learning is rapidly gaining popularity among Bulgarian judges and
prosecutors and currently between 12 and 15 % of their training is delivered online.
The number of training courses and participants has been growing steadily over the
years:
April 2014
Page 69 of 247

Development of e-Learning
1200
1000
1000
880
844
800
600
Number of trainings
440
Number of participants
400
214
200
0
65
1 25
2007
2009
13
21
25
20
25
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Plan
One Bulgarian judge who has taken several such e-Learning courses reported as
follows:
I took part in e-Learning, once on the topic of Waste Management, and the next
one was about Environment Impact Assessments. Both were very interesting and
helpful. With each of them you can learn everything you need to know about the
subject without leaving the office. This kind of learning saves time and efforts, and
there is another very special benefit you can directly ask the teacher questions on
which you are especially interested and get the most useful answers which are
possible in practice. So, in general it is a great idea. I know that many of my
colleagues have used such training on various matters that are of interest to them.
Another judge who has taken six such courses also reported positively:
Some of the courses have online discussions which are used by judges to
standardise practice through exchange of ideas. We appreciate the ease with which
we can ask course tutors questions by e-mail. Judges outside the capital have
found it useful as they do not have to travel to the National Institute of Justice in
Sofia.
The team has concluded that this provides an example of a Best Practice [See Fact
Sheet No. 22].
April 2014
Page 70 of 247

6.2.2. Blended training

6.2.2.1. Blended training, i.e. the combination of distance learning and face-to-face
learning, also combines the advantages of both methodologies, by assigning to eLearning those phases of training programmes that mostly rely on theoretical or
practical learning rather than inter-personal contact, and by leaving to face-to-face
teaching and learning (which can be scheduled before or after the e-Learning phase)
the promotion of more interactive activities, even if an efficient e-Learning course is
also a course which notably uses an interactive training methodology. The
development of information technology and telecommunications now makes it
possible, in most countries of the EU, to use these new instruments of communication,
provided that computer networks and telecommunication are sufficiently developed
and available to judges and that users are familiar with their use. Several benefits can
be identified in such use.
6.2.2.2. Netherlands and Spain are both strong exponents of the use of blended eLearning whereby face-to-face and e-Learning are seamlessly interwoven. In the
Netherlands a blended course consists of a self-study component and a face-to-face
meeting of a maximum of one day, sometimes of only a few hours. The self-study
component of the course is accessible via the digital learning environment. The digital
module is made up of several lessons, e.g. preparatory assignments, self-assessment
quizzes, short web lectures with or without self-test questions, materials to read
before the face-to-face meeting, background information materials, and a forum also
provides the possibility of raising in advance questions that can be answered at the
meeting. It also indicates to learners how much time the self-study component should
normally take. The group meeting takes place afterwards and can be national, regional
or local, or at a specific court or prosecutors office.
6.2.2.3. In Spain, the Spanish Judicial School has developed blended e-Learning
courses, particularly in the area of European law. This practice was begun in 2004 and
different courses have been developed in the areas of co-operation in civil and criminal
matters and in competition law. Some of these courses have benefitted from EU action
grants which have provided the funds in order to conduct the courses not only in
Spanish, but also in English and French and thus open them to judges and prosecutors
from other EU Member States.
April 2014
Page 71 of 247

6.2.2.4. Courses are always structured as follows. First, participants take part in an eLearning course that usually lasts for approximately eight weeks. Group or individual
assignments must be completed by a given deadline and interactivity is encouraged
through online fora. Those participants that successfully complete this course are then
invited to attend a short two-day seminar in order to further develop their acquired
knowledge and evaluate their learning process. Attending the seminar is an incentive
for completing the online course and also allows participants that have interacted
online to meet in person. Because participants have previously followed the online
course the seminar can be much more focused on the practical problems that judges
and prosecutors face in their work.
6.2.2.5. The Spanish Judicial School has re-used the online courses several times and
up-dated and expanded them, very often on the initiative of former participants who
have also used the e-tools in order to react to new legislation or case law
developments. These courses have played a major role in the creation of a network of
judges who specialise in EU law and who are regularly consulted by other judges.
6.2.2.6. The benefits of these practices are:
They ensure that the participants have the same and sufficient level of
knowledge before the face-to-face meeting.
During the training, the participants can focus on the more practical application
of knowledge exercises and the exchange of experience.
It makes the contact between the trainer and the participants more effective.
The materials and the digital learning environment remain accessible whenever
the participant wants to consult them, before and after the course.
Flexibility: part of the course is carried out at a time and location that suits the
participant.
6.2.2.7. In the teams view, the practices in both the Netherlands and Spain are
examples of a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 23 and 23 i] in blended
learning that can be used across Europe, wherever there is a functioning digital
environment which is easily accessible for the participants and the additional hardware
with the potential for listening to and watching audio/visual materials. The main
advantage is that participants are well prepared for the face-to-face training that will
improve their active participation and will enable them to better retain the content of
the training.
April 2014
Page 72 of 247

6.2.3. Use of the Extranet and discussion forum in a distance learning portal
6.2.3.1. In Bulgaria, since 2009 the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been using
an Extranet in addition to its Distance Learning Portal and Discussion Forum25. It
plays a supporting role in the training process. The judicial environment in Bulgaria is
in perpetual gradual development. Within this environment, the practice meets the
need to provide a reliable source of information that is regularly updated, and can be
easily accessed and consulted.
6.2.3.2. This professional virtual space was created in 2007-2009 as part of EU-funded
projects. Initially it was designed as a communication tool to serve the judiciary in
matters relating to European law. It has been further upgraded to serve as a platform
for exchange of information between the network of EU law co-ordinators in the
courts. Currently NIJ is uploading a great variety of training and information materials
for professional use by judges and prosecutors who are registered as users.
6.2.3.3. Since 2012 this professional virtual space has also been opened to trainee
judges and prosecutors. All practical training materials (court decisions, assignments
and exercises used during their 9-month initial training at the NIJ) are uploaded onto
the Extranet and the participants can consult them from anywhere. Additionally, in
2013 under an EU-funded project the NIJ has purchased e-books for trainee judges to
assist them in the learning process during their initial training26.
6.2.3.4. The team has concluded that this provides an example of a Promising
Practice as it has potential but requires a significant investment in order to make
available and maintain the necessary information [See Fact Sheet No. 24].
6.2.4. Extensive use of online podcasting and video-conferencing

6.2.4.1. Romania makes extensive use of online podcasting and placing records and
transcripts on the Internet. This practice has been described in Chapter Five at 5.7.
It provides an example of a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 25] which can be
applied anywhere, if the technical equipment is available. It has achieved its
See 6.2.1.2 for a presentation of the Distance Learning Portal and Discussion Forum.
Approximately 30,000 euros for the development and upgrade of the Extranet and approximately
18,000 euros for 70 e-books.
25
26
April 2014
Page 73 of 247

objectives of quickly reaching a wide audience at a low cost. It also ensures a uniform
quality of training by renowned and highly-skilled teachers.
6.2.4.2. In Portugal, a large number of continuous training activities are now
delivered to participants using the video-conferencing system, especially when dealing
with topics on the approach to new legal instruments under scrutiny for discussion and
debate. This practice allows interaction from different points of reception to the home
event, and it is often combined with a special e-mail box, where participants may
send questions and remarks and await a live reply. The benefits of this practice for
users are that it:
Avoids major transport costs and saves time.
Reaches its audience either live or at a time of the users choosing and
is located in several places at the same time.
Allows the simultaneous attendance of participants, making it much
larger than the capacity of a standard training event.
Allows exchanges between trainers and target audience.
It is, therefore, an example of a Good Practice that can be used everywhere if there
is sufficiently widespread and efficient video-conferencing equipment. It reaches a
large public audience at low cost combined with high quality and flexibility of use. It
also helps to provide uniform training and quality through selected trainers [See Fact
Sheet No. 26].
6.2.5. The live case method

6.2.5.1. The live case method is a hybrid between learning from a guest teacher (e.g.
a judge at court) and learning from a case study (via a teacher in a training
institution). It involves dealing with a case in real time by way of a virtual
connection, via video-conference, between a training institution and a court, during an
oral hearing. The team found a well-developed example of this method which they
consider to be an example of a Best Practice in Spain [See Fact Sheet No. 27].
6.2.5.2. This method involves participation in the relevant court proceedings from its
inception in the courthouse to its end. The Spanish Judicial School enters into a
April 2014
Page 74 of 247

partnership with a court, thus allowing the proceedings to be followed by trainees via
video-conference until the conclusion of the case.
6.2.5.3. Before the training, it is essential to hold a planning session between the
teacher at the school and the guest teacher in court, in order to select the case or
cases to be dealt with in a real time session, as well as to develop key decision points
which fit with the pedagogical objectives. They may include for example, interlocutory
discussions with the judge or the trainee giving their own decision live to camera in
the training institution at the same time as the judge in court.
6.2.5.4. To ensure that trainees are able to contribute meaningfully to the process,
they need to prepare for the real time session in advance by reading the materials
from the proceedings and other materials. At the end of the real time session, a
general discussion is held between students, teacher or judge via a video-conference,
focusing on questions previously provided to the students with the pre-course
materials. For this practice, a widespread use of technology is required.
6.3 Note on training the trainers: a selection methodology

6.3.1. Judicial training agencies at national and European level all seek to ensure that
training is delivered to a consistently high standard by qualified and experienced
trainers. This is especially the case when training is addressed to persons who are
entering the judicial or prosecutorial profession. Solid foundations for trainers in this
area require an awareness of accepted adult learning principles, as well as good
presentation and communication skills. As the project team did not specifically seek
examples of train the trainer programmes in the questionnaire, they do not have
examples of practices to put forward under this category. The study suggested,
however, that there are a number of standard teaching methodologies aimed at
training trainers, all inspired by adult learning principles such as learning by doing
and case study techniques. Specific train the trainers programmes are also widely
used to match initial training provided by workplace-based mentors when they form
part of the training team. Setting up a network of mentors and trainers allows training
agencies to build a qualified training support team that is readily accessible to trainees
when needed, even outside formally planned training initiatives. However, it is clear
from the analysis that there is a particular need to train trainers in the provision of ITassisted out-of-the workplace training guidance.
April 2014
Page 75 of 247

6.3.2. The team received from Romania an example of a holistic model for the
selection, training, evaluation and development of trainers which they consider to be a
Good Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 28]. The NIM reported that its trainers are
selected mainly from the judiciary, as well as from academia and experts. There are 3
categories of trainers: full-time trainers, part-time trainers and co-ordinators of
internships. All NIM trainers are included in a list of trainers that is approved both by
the NIMs Scientific Council and by the High Council of Magistracy. The list is public.
The training staff is recruited for both initial and continuous training by means of a
public competition.
6.3.3. Trainers are annually assessed based on specific methodologies adapted for
each type of training. The annual assessment of trainers and co-ordinators of
internships is conducted according to four sources of assessment:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The self-evaluation filled in by the trainer/co-ordinator of internships

The assessment made by the person responsible for the particular field of study
The feedback forms filled in by participants in the training events
The assessment made by the NIMs specialist in educational sciences.
NIM believes that the quality of the training provided depends entirely on the trainers
used. A document regulating the recruitment, assessment and possible termination of
the role of trainers - the Statute of the NIM Training Staff has been adopted by the
NIMs Scientific Council and subsequently by the High Council of Magistracy.
6.3.4. In the first stage of the appointment procedure, the trainer selection
commission evaluates the application file submitted. After this evaluation, the
selection commission categorises it as recommendable or not recommendable. Only
the candidates that are categorised as recommendable are eligible to move onto the
next stage. During the second eliminatory stage, the commission examines the
candidates by means of an interview, following detailed criteria which include the
ability to communicate and to interact when working with adults; in-depth specialised
knowledge; the ability to research various sources, both in the Romanian language
and in other commonly-used foreign languages; the ability to plan and organise;
knowledge of didactical skills; and the ability to co-operate, contribute and integrate
within a team. After the interview, the selection commission classifies the candidates,
giving marks from 1 to 10 for each of the criteria indicated above. Only the candidates
who get the minimum grade of 8 qualify for the next stage. At the third stage of the
April 2014
Page 76 of 247

selection procedure, the candidates perform as a trainer in a demonstration seminar
sequence in front of a group of trainees. This is followed by a further interview of the
best candidates. It is a very rigorous process.
6.3.5. Once recruited, an end-to-end policy also governs the ongoing evaluation of a
trainers performance. All evaluations are recorded on NIMs central database. The
database offers a centralised view of the quality of training provided by NIM, an
individual assessment of each trainer (global, per year or per seminar). Having a
Statute of the NIM training staff allows NIM to have a clear, objective, predictable
selection procedure. Rights, obligations and situations when the trainers position can
be terminated are also clearly determined. The database that keeps the evaluation
records allows NIM to use a unitary evaluation process to further improve the quality
of the training it offers and the trainers abilities.
6.4 Complementary decentralised training to reflect local training needs and

issues
The project team found several interesting examples of practices under this heading.
6.4.1. Every year in Bulgaria, the Bulgarian National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
provides the district courts, administrative courts and district prosecution offices with
the opportunity to apply for pre-defined grants by NIJ, in order to organise regional
training initiatives on specific topics of relevant regional interest. The budget is
regionally managed and the expenditure incurred is subsequently reviewed and
approved by NIJ. This practice contributes to the maintenance of a balance between
training demand and supply. Centralised training cannot guarantee the annual
participation of all the judges in the country. Some courts and prosecution offices have
local or regional training needs that are of interest only to a limited number of
participants.
6.4.2. In Romania, decentralised seminars are organised and directly co-ordinated by
the NIM, at the level of the courts of appeal and the prosecutors offices, allowing
every judge and prosecutor either to participate or to be informed of the new
provisions. The network of NIM trainers used for the decentralised seminars is
continuously being enlarged.
6.4.3. In France, one of the main focuses of the national training programme is the
organisation of training courses on key reforms in the context of decentralised
April 2014
Page 77 of 247

continuous training, i.e. in the nine courts of appeal where the National School for the
Judiciary (ENM) and regional training coordinators carry out their duties.
The project team considers all the above examples to be Good Practices [See Fact
Sheets No. 29, 29 i and 29 ii].
6.4.4. In Italy, the Italian School for the Judiciary (SSM), as a successor to the Italian
High Council for the Judiciary, within the context of decentralised training uses a
network of local trainers who are competent to address training needs in European law
and who organise training activities in the various judicial districts. This process
satisfies many training needs that cannot be addressed at a central level. It also
provides databases, data collection and indexes of case law of the European Court of
Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The team has concluded that this provides an example of a Best Practice [See Fact
Sheet No. 38].
6.5 Special methodologies devised to facilitate learning in different types of

groups
6.5.1. Large teams: the snowball technique
A practice being used by the Judicial College in England and Wales is the Snowball
Technique. The method has been designed to enable large groups to distil complex
thinking or collaborate to identify a common set of options or ideas. The shape of the
exercise and the time taken depends on the number of people involved: e.g. for a
group of 24 one may start with four groups of six participants. The four groups discuss
the topic and identify their thoughts on the subject and, after a period of time,
dependent on the complexity of the subject (anything from 20 40 minutes), the
groups of six join together to form two groups of 12, who will collaborate for 15 30
minutes to share their ideas and come up with a collective view. The final stage sees
the two groups of 12 joining together, for up to 20 minutes, to identify the common
themes and/or a collective set of ideas. The final set of ideas is then reviewed in
plenary.
All stages of the exercise take place in one large room. Initially groups sit around
tables, or gather around flip charts. As the groups expand, the participants find their
April 2014
Page 78 of 247

own ways of gathering together and collecting their ideas. They are facilitated by one
or two people who act as timekeepers and manage the various stages of the exercise.
This method has been adopted as a means of consolidating learning or to encourage
collaboration in the development of new ideas. The methodology has been employed
to encourage creativity, shared learning and to produce high energy during the
session (e.g. to enable a group of judicial tutors to begin the design of a new, crossjurisdictional training course, with a group of senior judges to support them in
identifying the core leadership skills required for their role and to begin the process of
designing a job description). The exercise is highly cost-effective as the participants in
the group do the work themselves, with the aid of one or two facilitators. The
requirements are a room large enough for the groups to work together and materials
for them to capture their ideas (flip charts, white boards, paper and pens). A good
facilitator will encourage the group to work collaboratively.
According to its designers, the method has been successfully used as a means of
consolidating learning or to encourage collaboration in the development of new ideas.
The methodology has been employed to encourage creativity, shared learning and to
produce high energy during the session.
The main advantage of this method is that:
It promotes a good shared level of analysis of a problem, including listening to
the views of other participants and developing the capacity to summarise the
views expressed to achieve a common vision.
It asks participants to demonstrate creativity and imagination by creating a
framework for dynamic discussion.
It promotes a better recall of information due to the active participation that
demands the attention of all participants.
In the teams view this is an example of a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 30].
6.5.2. Small teams: the use of shared opinion writing, filming and other forms
of interactive feedback
The method is to bring together a small number of people in a team in order to
promote an exchange of experience and knowledge between participants.
April 2014
Page 79 of 247

6.5.2.1. The Netherlands: small learning teams

The Dutch Training and Study Centre for the Judiciary (SSR) has introduced a
methodology of small learning teams in a pilot training course on writing civil
decisions. The traditional course during the initial training programme on writing civil
decisions lasted four days. This was mostly a theoretical course. After the course, the
trainees returned to their workplace at the civil section of a court, where they were
supposed to put the theory into practice. In this set-up, there was little connection
between the theory and practice at the workplace, which was felt as a deficiency. This
confirmed the adage (attributed to Karl Marx)27 that theory without practice is sterile;
practice without theory is blind.
The learning teams, upon which this new methodology is based, consist of a small
number of participants (maximum six) with a similar level of knowledge and
experience but organised regionally. After a national theoretical two-day course on
writing civil verdicts, the regional teams each have five sessions, which take place
every two weeks. In these sessions, the participants work together with a trainer on
practical assignments, based on real cases.
For the development of this new methodology, a project group was formed, consisting
of SSR staff (a seconded civil law judge, a course manager, an educational scientist)
and a court clerk (legal supporting staff member, who assists judges in writing
verdicts). This group held consultations with participants of the traditional course.
Also, it was decided to test this methodology in a pilot. The pilot started with a kickoff meeting to brief the participants in the pilot training, the trainers in the course as
well as the workplace trainer/mentors. This meeting was important as it was
necessary to brief everybody about the set-up of the new methodology and the
(learning) philosophy behind it, and to get the commitment of all involved.
From the evaluation it became clear that the main advantages of this method are:
Colleagues learn together and reflect on how to draft good, analytically-sound
and well-motivated decisions.
The workplace trainer/mentor of the trainees is also involved in the learning
team sessions.
"Practice without theory is blind. Theory without practice is sterile. Theory becomes a material force as
soon as it is absorbed by the masses." (Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law, Jan.
1844, MECW, Vol. 3, p. 182)
27
April 2014
Page 80 of 247

The methodology provides a better connection between the education/training
at the workplace and at the training centre, due to the fact that the workplace
trainers/mentors and the trainers of the course co-operate in the learning
teams.
This in turn simulates a dynamic learning environment, where trainees are
actively involved in their learning process. Moreover, the learning teams
provide a safe and accessible learning environment. Learning from their own
mistakes, from mistakes made by their colleague-trainees, and practising
together in a safe environment works well.
The regional approach worked very well by enabling and stimulating
participants to contact each other in between course meetings and afterwards
with questions.
Based on the positive results that were obtained with using this methodology, SSR has
adopted it in their new initial training programme for judges that started in 2014.
Because the presented practice has only been used in a pilot setting, the team has
concluded that this provides an example of a Promising Practice [See Fact Sheet
No. 31].
6.5.2.2. Estonia: opinion writing

In Estonia, the methodology requires an introductory seminar in a relatively small
group (10 participants) led by an experienced and well-respected judge. An individual
feedback phase then follows.
In this phase, each participant is invited to send in one reasoned judgment which will
then be forwarded to two readers: other judges or academics with high level
reasoning skills for their critique. The judgment is one that has already become final
and the critique is double-blind: the readers do not know whose opinion they are
reading, and the judge does not know who the readers are.
The readers feedback will focus on the legal reasoning and the argumentation in the
judgment, not on whether the reader agrees with the final outcome or not.
April 2014
Page 81 of 247

The main advantage of the method is:
To promote the active participation of each and allow the reader to complete
the exercise individually.
To allow the reader to contrast his/her opinion and experience with that of
others, if different.
To share the knowledge and experience of others and benefit from the lessons
of specialist individuals.
The team concluded that this provides an example of a Good Practice [See Fact
Sheet No. 32].
6.5.2.3. England and Wales: the business of judging

The business of judging training is a two-day residential seminar open to judges from
all jurisdictions which forms part of the Judicial College programme of continuing
education. It is virtually paperless with almost nothing to read or prepare. It occupies
a total of 13 training hours and judges spend only 2.5 of those in plenary sessions
listening to others. For the rest of the time, they work in small groups of six judges
supervised by an experienced course tutor. This means that the seminar involves 20%
listening and 80% doing. It is divided into four parts:
Part 1: is a module on judicial conduct and ethics. In small groups, the judges
are invited to consider and discuss a number of in court and out of the court
practical scenarios and how they would deal with them. The scenarios can be
on film or on paper. Both approaches are used.
Part 2: is entitled Assessing Credibility: making a decision and giving an oral
judgment. The assessment of credibility is surely one of the most important
judicial skills and is required in most cases, whatever or wherever the
jurisdiction. In small groups, the judges watch a DVD showing the conflicting
evidence of the complainant and the defendant in an employment case based
on alleged sexual harassment. The judges are asked to complete
questionnaires indicating the factors that affected their assessment of the
witnesses credibility. Each judge then gives a short oral judgment, of about
five minutes. The judgment is delivered in the small groups and there is some
time for preparation. Each judgment is filmed on a micro-disc and all or part of
the film is projected within the group. Each judge then receives feedback from
April 2014
Page 82 of 247

the course tutor and the other members of the group on his or her
performance and there is a discussion on the learning points that arose.
Part 3: is about managing judicial life and deals with judicial stress and how to
cope with it. It includes a video presentation made by an experienced criminal
law judge who suffered a nervous breakdown and fully recovered from it.
Part 4: is called Dealing with Unexpected and High Conflict Situations in a
Hearing. In the small groups, each judge is asked to conduct a live hearing of
a few minutes. They will have received a brief summary of the case in advance
but do not know what is about to happen. In an attempt to simulate the court
or tribunal, the case is played out by a professional advocate and a professional
actor. The judges task is to assess, manage and solve the many unexpected
problems that unfold before him or her. They may be based in the jurisdiction
with which the judge is familiar or a different one. The point of the exercise is
dealing with the unexpected and the difficult. The hearing is filmed and all or
part of the film may be replayed within the group. The judges receive feedback
on their performance from the course tutor and the members of the group.
The main advantages of this method are that:
The method is paperless: judges learn essentially by doing.
Judges learn from each other.
Judges participate actively and collectively in their training.
Judges can develop common generic skills e.g. fair treatment, authority in
court, decisiveness, independence, impartiality and integrity by being trained
together, in whatever jurisdiction they mainly sit.
In the teams view this is an example of a Best Practice. It should, however, be
noted that this seminar is fairly expensive to deliver because significant resources are
involved in the course delivery [See Fact Sheet No. 33].
April 2014
Page 83 of 247

6.5.2.4. Spain: using stories to present ethical problems

A practice in Spain also reflects the potential of using video-recording to present
realistic problems involving ethical questions using stories of real life cases. In this
practice video presentations are coupled with the idea of writing short stories.
This activity helps participants to identify for themselves answers that are needed to
ethical questions. It is also intended to make them aware of the resources they have
already used to engage with ethical choices in their own lives and which can be
applied to ethical dilemmas in the judicial activity.
After reading selected short stories giving rise to moral dilemmas, participants are
encouraged to ask themselves What would I have done in this situation?, or How
could the problem have been avoided?.
The methodology of the activity is co-operative and participatory. A trainer, a
practising judge and trainee judges are involved in the drafting of the short stories.
The stories are deliberately short, but they present complex situations in which the
relationship between an individual and society at large is at stake. Importantly, the
revealed scenarios are not covered by any law. The activity is performed by small
groups of six to eight participants supervised by a trainer of the School. The trainer
invites trainees to evaluate the case from the perspective of a judge in that situation.
Discussions of problems begin in small groups followed by a large group discussion of
the main conclusions.
This practice may be regarded as a Good Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 34], since
the method is participatory and enables trainees to think over core issues. Reading the
stories is stimulating and enjoyable and encourages motivation. Trainees understand
that the social reality in which they are going to work may pose problems which
cannot be solved exclusively through legal criteria.
6.6 Close monitoring of communication skills

Initiatives have been taken in several countries to promote communication and train
judges specifically to improve their performance. This concerns communication both
with the parties at the hearing and with the media. Such specialised training can be
April 2014
Page 84 of 247

very useful and give positive results. However, this requires using specialised people
such as psychologists and the courses can only address a limited number of people.
6.6.1. Estonia: self-reflection on communication skills

This training methodology is used for training on communication and hearing
management skills. The training consists of three stages: an introductory seminar,
one-to-one feedback sessions and a follow-up seminar. The number of participants is
usually five and the trainer group consists of a communication specialist and a
specialist on procedural law.
At the introductory seminar, the participants discuss effective communication and
hearing management strategies that they use. Then each participant is visited by a
trainer to observe and videotape a court hearing conducted by the participant and to
give immediate feedback to the participant. Before the follow-up seminar, the videorecordings are made available to the rest of the training group to allow them to learn
from their fellow judges best practices.
At the follow-up seminar, the participants view and discuss the most significant
practices and formulate conclusions and recommendations for their own further
development.
It responds to the need for individualised training on effective hearing
management and professional communication.
The training is relevant to the needs of each participating judge and there is
close interaction between trainer and judge.
The method facilitates learning that takes into account the judges time
constraints.
Judges are very interested in how their style of conducting their official
business comes across to others in the courtroom, however, most feel that
asking litigants for feedback would be highly inappropriate.
The team finds this to be an example of a Best Practice that improves the quality of
justice. The participant is facing his or her own challenges and benefits from individual
coaching [See Fact Sheet No. 35].
April 2014
Page 85 of 247

6.6.2. Media communication

Judges are increasingly called upon to communicate with the public, as are members
of the prosecutors office. Many jurisdictions have spokesperson judges who must
communicate with the public about specific cases, on law or on the administration of
justice. This requires that these judges are familiar with how the press operates, can
master media tools and acquire practical experience.
6.6.2.1. Germany: interactive and multi-layer media training

The German Judicial Academy offers annually three to four interactive four-to-five day
media training events for a maximum of 25 attendees (spokespersons of courts and
prosecution offices) per course. Customarily, there are at least two media trainers
present (often journalists), and the attendees are put into rotating thematic working
groups of 8-12 persons at maximum (meaning that at the end of the course, everyone
will have actively dealt with each topic). Videotaping and individual feedback ensure
that both strong and weaker points are revealed for analysis and discussion within the
group.
Examples of interactive group topics include:
Giving a TV or radio interview
Making a TV statement
Profiling a new court leader
Informing the public while safeguarding data protection rights
Learning to cope with aggressive counterparts.
It is practice-oriented and provides multi-layer media training focusing on
typical media communication patterns, enriched with objective feedback. This
allows the attendees to develop their own communication strategy and to have
more confidence in front of the camera or in a press conference.
It gives judges the confidence to directly face media professionals in various
settings.
This provides an example of a Good Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 36]
April 2014
Page 86 of 247

Chapter seven: implementation of training tools to favour the correct

application of EU law and international judicial co-operation
7.1 Introduction
For EU law to be effective, it has to be applied properly in practice. [...] Legal
practitioners must have a good knowledge of EU law in order to correctly apply
European law all over the European Union. And given the diversity of national legal
traditions and systems, this requires, first of all, well-informed and well-trained legal
practitioners in all our Member States. With this in mind, in 2011, the European
Commission set the objective of training 700.000 legal practitioners half of all those
in the EU in European law or the law of another Member State, by 2020.28
European judicial training is a main priority for the European Commission and the
European Parliament.29 The findings of the 2011 study on Judicial Training in the
European Union Member States30 concluded: there is a high level of awareness of the
relevance of EU law. It is widely accepted that national judges and prosecutors need
to be trained in EU law; knowledge of EU law and skills to apply this field of law are
essential to perform their role as EU judges and EU prosecutors. More recently, the
Menu for Justice Project31 also discussed EU law training for the judiciary.
Report on European Judicial Training 2011, European Commission DG Justice 2013. In similar terms:
Report on European Judicial Training 2012, European Commission DG Justice 2013.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/european-judicial-training/index_en.htm
ERA/EJTN study Judicial training in the European Union Member States, 2011, p. 5.
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=60091)
Daniela Piana, Philip Langbroek a.o. (eds), Legal education and judicial training in Europe. The menu for
justice project report, Eleven International Publishing, 2013.
28
29
30
31
April 2014
Page 87 of 247

7.1.1. It is interesting and encouraging to see that many of the Best, Good and
Promising Practices identified in this study encompass the recommendations of both
studies.32 They also reflect to a large extent the principles laid down in Opinion No. 9
of the Consultative Council of European Judges (2006).33
7.2 Main themes identified in the area of training tools on EU law and
international judicial co-operation
7.2.1. This study under LOT 1 of the pilot project on European Judicial Training
concentrates on Best Practices generally, across the whole field of training judges and
prosecutors in the European Union. Two sections in the questionnaire, however, were
dedicated specifically to gathering examples of Best, Good and Promising Practices
in tools for training activities on EU law and international judicial co-operation. This
suggests that different tools may be more appropriate for training in EU law and
international judicial co-operation than the tools that are used in domestic law
training activities. The answers to the questionnaire show that a number of specific
training activities and methodologies are being used in relation to these topics.
From the answers received, the team identified several Best, Good and Promising
Practices in the training tools used in EU law and international judicial co-operation:
A comprehensive, multi-faceted approach for training in EU law and
international judicial co-operation.
Use of e-Learning/blended learning.
Involvement of key national figures from European institutions to raise
awareness and knowledge of EU law.
Combining training on EU law/international judicial co-operation and legal
language training.
Joint training of judges and prosecutors from neighbouring countries/regions,
reflecting the existing operational co-operation.
Some of the main recommendations of the ERA/EJTN study include: make language training available;
decentralised locations (in the country itself); regional activities with neighbouring regions in other
countries; practical, active forms of training, such as case studies linked to daily work practice;
comprehensive training programmes (not single, unconnected subjects); e-Learning and blended learning
just in time, used to provide basic knowledge. Recommendations of the Menu for Justice project regarding
EU law training (p. 257, 292): judicial training [on EU law] has to be more practical and less theoretical: it
could be very useful to organise seminars focused on problems that judges face during their day-to-day
work; Updates on development of EU law and ECHR case law should be included as a systematic part of the
regular in-service training programmes; exchange between national and European/international courts
should be facilitated (also judges of international courts visiting national court judges).
www.summitofhighcourts.com/2013/docs/standarts/CCJE9.doc
32
33
April 2014
Page 88 of 247

Learning by doing to increase knowledge and skills on EU law or domestic law
of other (Member) states.
Development of EU law training materials at the pan-European level for
subsequent incorporation at the national level.
Ensuring visibility of EU law content of domestic law.
7.2.2. The EJTN exchange programmes

7.2.2.1 The EJTN flagship programme, the Exchange Programme (both in its standard
format and the new AIAKOS format) has not been included in the Best Practices Fact
Sheet Files, primarily because it is now accepted as common practice within the EU.
The EJTN has been granted the full monopoly in relation to its planning and execution
by all the training institutions of all EU Member States. In other words, the Exchange
Programme should be seen as a collective asset common to all EU Member States that
is regularly adapted and updated following a critical analysis of its development within
the EJTN Exchange Programme Working Group.
7.2.2.2. However, it is necessary that this report makes a short reference to this
programme as the Exchange Programme is able to foster direct contacts and the
exchange of views and experiences between judges, prosecutors and trainers from
different European Union countries. It also contributes to the improvement of
language skills and greater practical knowledge of other EU judicial legal systems
and/or of EU law, as well as of fundamental rights standards and the tools of judicial
co-operation in civil and criminal matters. Therefore, it has made a decisive
contribution to the enhancement of mutual trust and the build-up of a common
European judicial culture and can be used in the future as part of the dissemination
and sharing of our identified Best, Good and Promising Practices, either through
trainer exchanges or through direct discussion between judges on their training
experiences.
7.2.2.3. The Standard Programme consists of:
a) Short-term exchanges in the national courts of the EU member states:
Short-term exchanges for judges (including administrative judges) and
prosecutors are organised in the courts/prosecutors offices/training institutions
of the participating States either as individual or as group exchanges. In
individual exchanges, the visiting judge/prosecutor shadows a counterpart
April 2014
Page 89 of 247

(tutor) in their daily practice in a court/prosecution office of the host country.
Along with acquiring a close insight into the functioning of the host judicial
system, he or she can directly observe how proceedings/files are handled. They
usually require proficient knowledge of the language of the host country. Group
exchanges allow for several judges and prosecutors from different countries to
undertake their exchanges at the same time, thus increasing the crossfertilisation aspect of the experience. Group exchanges are usually organised
in a common language other than that of the hosting country. This makes the
judicial systems of countries that have less widely-known languages accessible
for participants from different geographical areas. As a counterbalance, limited
recourse to interpreting (for example, in order to attend court hearings) is
offered. In order to allow wider access to the Exchange Programme to
European judges and prosecutors, specific efforts have been made to increase
the number of group exchanges. In addition, some other exchanges involve
judicial trainers and staff of training institutions who are hosted by a foreign
judicial training institution and thereby become familiar with other training
activities and methodologies, pedagogical tools and Best Practices.
b) Long-term exchanges in European Courts: Long-term exchanges for
judges (including administrative judges) and prosecutors are organised at the
Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human
Rights. Selected participants are assigned to the Cabinet of a member of the
Court (ECJ), to the Registry or to the Research division (ECHR) depending on
the participants' profiles and the knowledge and unique skills that are
specifically required and detailed by the hosting institutions. They actively take
part in the institutions tasks during an extensive training period, thus acquiring
a unique and in-depth knowledge of the institutions working procedures and
decisions, as well as of community law and case law or fundamental rights
standards.
c) Long-term exchanges at the European Union's Judicial Co-operation
Unit (EUROJUST): In line with the Exchange Programmes objective of
enlarging the number of countries that benefit from these exchanges, longterm training periods for practising judges and prosecutors from the Member
States are organised at EUROJUST. The selected participants are integrated
into the various national desks and actively take part in the host institutions
activities, thus providing them with in-depth knowledge of EUROJUSTs role and
working procedures. They are also involved in judicial co-operation in criminal
matters between EU countries. Trainees also get acquainted with the Case
Management System (CMS) which is the main tool used to monitor the number
of cases currently opened and the state of proceedings.
d) Study visits: Short-term visits for several groups of judges (including
administrative judges) and prosecutors from different European Union Member
April 2014
Page 90 of 247

States are organised in bodies such as the ECHR, the ECJ and EUROJUST. The
study visits focus on providing an overview of the functioning of these Europewide bodies and provide a platform for the exchange of experiences,
information sharing and professional networking. The discussions and meetings
contribute to the creation of links between judges and prosecutors and their
peers and constitute a crucial platform in fostering mutual understanding and
trust and the feeling of belonging to a common judicial culture.
e) The initial training exchange scheme, better known as the AIAKOS
Project, is addressed to future and newly-appointed judges and prosecutors
and consists of two-week exchanges (one week abroad and one week at home
with foreign trainees) for groups of judicial trainees (judges/prosecutors
undergoing initial training accompanied by their trainers) to other European
initial training schools (or courts, whenever the concept of a judicial school
does not exist in the hosting country). The visiting trainees are expected to
take part in the same training sessions as their hosting counterparts although
additional joint training activities with an accent on the European dimension are
expected to be organised. However, in order to match the requirements of each
one of the hosts' training concepts such as the existence or not of an initial
judicial training phase, existence or not of a national training institution, initial
training being provided only in Courts etc. the design of the programme for
the week abroad will vary considerably from country to country, although all
will match the requirements and goals of the exchange programme as a whole.
Each one of them comprises, to a greater or lesser extent, sessions on the
judicial system of the hosting country, seminars or workshops on EU Law,
study visits to courts and other judicial institutions.
7.3. Best, good and promising practices in the implementation of training

tools to favour the correct application of EU law and international judicial cooperation
7.3.1. A comprehensive, multi-faceted approach for training in EU law and
international judicial co-operation
7.3.1.1. A number of judicial training institutions indicated that training in EU law is
more effective when it consists of more than just training activities on EU law. Rather,
they use a variety of tools to ensure that judges and prosecutors obtain the
knowledge, skills and resources they need to apply EU law properly.
April 2014
Page 91 of 247

The answer provided by the National Institute of Justice from Bulgaria presents a
good overview of the tools that are being used. The model used in Bulgaria resembles
the model that was introduced by the Eurinfra project in the Netherlands in 2002.
[See Fact Sheets No. 24 and 37].
7.3.1.2. In general, four components can be discerned, as follows:
Transfer of knowledge via training, including blended-learning and e-Learning

Access to EU law via electronic means
Continual networking (real and virtual)
Use of e-Learning / Blended Learning directly in EU Law Training.
Transfer of knowledge via training, including blended-learning and eLearning
A number of respondents stated that the training activities on EU law and international
judicial co-operation ideally form a coherent programme. E-Learning can be used for
the transfer of basic knowledge of EU law and classroom meetings can then be used to
study practical cases.
7.3.1.3. During their study visit to Bulgaria National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in
November 2013, the project team was informed about the evolution of training on EU
law and international judicial co-operation at the NIJ from the pre-accession period
until the current day. It became clear that at the NIJ the focus in EU law training has
shifted considerably. Before 2007, the main aim of EU law training was to raise
awareness about EU law amongst judges and prosecutors by organising training
activities on basic EU law for all judges and prosecutors. Furthermore, attention was
paid to providing access to information. Nowadays, training on EU law and
international judicial co-operation instruments is integrated in courses on domestic
substantive law (e.g. family law, civil law, criminal law). The main focus of the training
activities is to enable judges and prosecutors to apply EU law and its instruments in
their (daily) practice, as part of the national law [See Fact Sheet No. 24].
7.3.1.4. Quite a high number of respondents mentioned that EU law is increasingly not
taught as a subject on its own, but forms an integral part of the training courses on
national law. For example, the respondent from Latvia reported that:
April 2014
Page 92 of 247

When the seminars on EU law were advertised as EU law seminars almost no
participants applied, so in the end we had to cancel them. Then we
incorporated EU law parts into the topics of national legislation with reference
to either directives or regulations, in this way creating a holistic and
comprehensive approach.
7.3.1.5. At the German Judicial Academy, a training course on EU law does not focus
on EU law just for the sake of being EU law. The courses show how EU law and
domestic law are inextricably entwined concerning substantive law as well as
procedural law. The Judicial Academy in Croatia mentioned that the participants
respond better to workshops/seminars where EU law is integrated in courses on
national law.
Access to EU law via electronic means
7.3.1.6. The second component presented in the Bulgarian practice, and which forms
part of the Eurinfra model in the Netherlands, consists of complementing training
activities on EU law and international judicial co-operation with the provision of access
to resources and up-to-date information on these topics. This is done through the use
of a (secure) digital platform. Examples of such access to EU law via electronic means
were also presented by the Czech Republic and Portugal.
7.3.1.7. In Portugal, there is a direct link with the training activities organised by the
training institution Center for Judiciary Studies (CEJ):
Along with the documentation delivered to participants in any continuous
training action dealing with legal issues, CEJ organises a special folder
gathering all EU legal instruments that are in any way connected with that
same topic. [] The folder is prepared by our EU law trainer, and it is
available online, like all other training materials concerning the same
activity, in an open area of the CEJ web site. [See Fact Sheet No. UP 2].
Continual networking (real and virtual)
7.3.1.8. The third component in the Bulgarian practice and of the Dutch Eurinfra
model is the existence of a specific network of EU law contact points within courts
and/or prosecutors offices to provide information on EU law, as well as to facilitate the
sharing of information on EU law amongst judges and prosecutors themselves.
April 2014
Page 93 of 247

7.3.1.9. The first network of this kind was established in the Netherlands, as part of
the Eurinfra project, in 2002. The Dutch network of court co-ordinators for European
law was designed to put the knowledge of European law within the judiciary to better
use by improving co-operation between the members of the judiciary. To achieve this,
the court co-ordinators were given the task of improving provision of information and
internal co-ordination within their own courts and maintaining contacts with other
courts on the subject of European law. Currently, with ongoing digitalisation and the
growth of social media, along with the expansion of European law within the national
jurisdictions, the court-co-ordinators and their network are reconsidering their
methods and potential for performing their tasks effectively. The team considered this
to be an example of Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 37].
7.3.1.10. The NIJ in Bulgaria established a judge co-ordinators network on EU law in
2009. Among them are civil, commercial, administrative and criminal judges who act
as key reference points in the main Bulgarian courts. They have access to additional
information resources and can be consulted by their colleagues with regard to finding
specific information or applying EU law. The judge co-ordinators also maintain
professional contact with the NIJ. [See Fact Sheet No. 24].
7.3.1.11. The Gaius project in Italy34 provides another example. Within the context of
decentralised training, the Italian School for the Judiciary, as the successor to the
Italian High Council for the Judiciary uses a network of local trainers who are
competent to address training needs in European law and to organise training
activities in the several judicial districts. In each judicial district, one or two specialised
contact points are appointed and integrated into the network of local trainers. They
have the task of satisfying the training needs in European law (both EU and ECHR law)
that cannot be addressed at central level. The system also provides databases, data
collection and indexes of case law of the ECJ and ECHR. The European Gaius trainers
also organise training activities in the various judicial districts that have the same
training needs and ensure they integrate European law perspectives into all other
training sessions. In embryo, this network is a subnet of the European training
networks, of which the EJTN is the most important. This practice is to be regarded as
a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 38], in the wake of the European Parliament
Stockholm Programme Resolution on Judicial Training (17 June 2012) which favours
integrations of national networks and European networks.
34
http://www.csm.it/gaius/pagesEN/presentation.html
April 2014
Page 94 of 247

7.3.1.12. Following the pattern established by the Dutch and Italian networks, in 2012
the National Institute of Magistracy (NIM) in Romania created EuRoQuod the
Romanian national network of court co-ordinators in the field of European Union Law.
The goal was to improve knowledge of European law within the Romanian judiciary
and to improve the accessibility of European law information resources using web
technology. EuRoQuod is now a functional network comprising 43 court co-ordinators,
most of them very active, and has a very useful website, containing three sections:
one dedicated to the network, another to preliminary requests and a third dedicated to
specific areas that raise questions in the courts case law. In its first year of operation,
the NIM has already organised four conferences dedicated to the training of EuRoQuod
members. The fourth EuRoQuod conference was broadcast online in English, making it
accessible to the Dutch and Italian magistrates and creating a connection between the
three networks. Moreover, the trainers were members of the Eurinfra, Gaius and
EuRoQuod networks. The other members that followed the discussion online had the
opportunity to use an online chatroom in order to actively participate in the debates
and could also connect with the conference participants via Skype. [See Fact Sheet
No. UP 3].
7.3.1.13. In Poland, the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution is
currently establishing a pool of judges and prosecutors to become consultants at their
court or prosecutors office, who will serve as a source of information and as a
consulting point for their colleagues on issues connected to the application of EU law.
7.3.1.14. From other sources35 the project team learned that several other countries
have a network of EU law contact points or experts in place within the judiciary or are
in the course of establishing one: Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, and Spain.
These networks are often linked in one way or another to the national training
institution for the judiciary.
7.3.1.15. In the teams view, the approach of taking a comprehensive, multi-faceted
approach for training in EU law and international judicial co-operation is a uniformly
Good Practice in European Judicial Training and does not therefore warrant the
Report, papers and presentations of the Conference Europe "Inter-Connected" (The Hague, 23-25
September 2012) can be found at: www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/CBb/AgendaRooster/Europe-Interconnected/Pages/default.aspx. More information on the various networks can also be found in the
Compilation of briefing notes for the Workshop on Judicial Training at the European Parliament on 28
November 2013
(www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201311/20131126ATT74944/20131126ATT74944EN.pdf
)
35
April 2014
Page 95 of 247

creation of individual fact sheets. It seems to be most effective when all three
components described above are in place. In some countries only one or two of the
components are in place, and the training institutions could strengthen their training in
EU law by adopting the additional components of the model.
7.3.2. Use of e-Learning/blended learning in EU law training

Many practices that have been developed as tools to encourage the correct application
of EU law and international judicial co-operation include the use of IT and electronic
means, such as search engines, databases, Moodle platforms and the Internet. In
many instances, the terms e-Learning and blended-learning are applied when these
means are used in training activities, either in stand-alone activities (e-Learning) or in
combination with a face-to-face training activity (blended-learning).
In relation to EU law and international judicial co-operation, we found some specific
uses of e-Learning and blended-learning tools.
7.3.2.1. ERA briefly mentioned, as part of the practice described in para. 5.7.11, that
they introduced basic stand-alone e-Learning courses following the adoption of major
EU legislative changes which assign a new role to the national judge. The courses are
available on the ERA website. These stand-alone e-Learning courses have replaced the
basic seminars that formed part of the systematic and rapid large scale training for
national judiciaries on new EU law and legislation.
7.3.2.2. The Judicial School of Spain uses e-Learning and blended learning in both
initial and continuous training on EU law. In initial training, the school recently set up
its training programme on EU law through e-Learning and blended learning activities.36
For continuous training, the school has been organising blended-learning courses since
2004, in particular in the area of European law. The approach is detailed above at
6.2.2.3.
7.3.2.3. The team recommends this practice, as well as the ERA example (see para.
5.7.11) as a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 23].
See: Plan Docente de Formacin Inicial. 65 Promocin de la Carrera Judicial. Curso 2013-2015, p. 8
(http://www.poderjudicial.es/stfls/CGPJ/ESCUELA%20JUDICIAL/FORMACIN%20INICIAL/PLANES%20DE%
20FORMACIN/DOCUMENTOSCGPJ/20131021%20Plan%20Docente%2065%20Promocin.pdf)
36
April 2014
Page 96 of 247

7.3.3. Combining training on EU law/international judicial co-operation and

legal language training
A number of respondents to the questionnaire presented examples of practices in
which training on EU law and international co-operation instruments, along with
training on the legal system of other EU Member States, takes place in combination
with training in legal terminology mostly English/French. In some cases, an
internship or study visit abroad also forms part of the training programme. The
courses are designed and led by legal experts and (legal) language experts. In some
of the examples, the participants are judges and/or prosecutors from different EU
Member States. In one presented practice, the participation is limited to judges and
prosecutors from a specific region.
7.3.3.1. This Good Practice seems to have its origin in Spain. The EJTN has been
implementing its Linguistics project since 2010, based on a model provided by the
Spanish Judicial School. The EJTN project Language training on the vocabulary of
judicial co-operation in criminal and in civil matters consists of one week of very
interactive training seminars that combine legal training and English or French
language training.
7.3.3.2. The Spanish Judicial School continues to organise this kind of combined
training, for instance through its project Driving judicial performance in the European
area of justice: mutual assistance in civil and criminal matters that produces results,
with EU financial support.
Each course within this training programme starts with a theoretical phase conducted
by a judge and a linguist, which includes practical exercises. Then, the participants
follow a one-week internship in courts in France and England. The final phase consists
of a linguistic immersion phase, aimed at reinforcing and consolidating the knowledge
acquired in the previous phases. The team considers this programme as a Good
Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 39].
7.3.3.3. Other judicial training institutions have introduced the methodology in their
legal training programmes. The National Institute of Magistracy of Romania indicated
in one of its answers to the questionnaire that it has worked with this methodology
since 2011:
April 2014
Page 97 of 247

The seminars are organised in the form of moot court sessions. [] Each
training seminar is followed by a linguistic component a training module
about the meaning and content of the terms frequently used in the field of
judicial co-operation in criminal matters.
The practical approach of the seminars combined with the linguistic component has, in
the Romanian experience, improved the understanding of how the judicial cooperation instruments actually work in practice.
7.3.4. Judges and prosecutors from neighbouring countries/regions are

trained together in EU law, reflecting the existing operational co-operation
7.3.4.1 The Hungarian Academy of Justice presented the experts with the example of
a co-operation project of the Visegrad Countries coordinated by the Hungarian Ministry
of Public Administration and Justice called Language training for judges and
prosecutors. The seminars run as part of this project focus on the development of
English language skills in criminal justice terminology on the part of criminal judges
and prosecutors in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Croatia, in order to
facilitate international judicial co-operation in criminal cases. [See Fact Sheet No. 39
i].
7.3.4.2. This project is an example of the active co-operation in the field of judicial
training that has been set up by the four countries that form the Visegrad group
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. For several years now, the
national judicial training institutions in these countries have organised training events
on EU law and international judicial co-operation instruments. These training activities
include the project on language training that was mentioned above, and also a project
dedicated to EU law training for junior judges. Some of the projects are organised in
co-operation with other training institutions, e.g. from Germany, and with ERA.
7.3.4.3. This regional co-operation is an added value in terms of sustainability. As
noted by ERA:
[] there are a series of more frequently occurring problems, considering that
travel, work and living in border areas require co-operation among authorities
and other legal professionals on a constant basis. Consequently, the case
examples focused on real life situations and while the skills learned in relation
to the application of EU law can be of use in any transnational case,
April 2014
Page 98 of 247

professional communication was established among the participating judges
and prosecutors facing similar challenges in daily practice.
The Polish respondent added:
The mentioned institutions of our region believe that due to historical reasons,
geographical closeness and similar experience with EU integration we share the
same needs of development of judges and prosecutors profiles in the area of
European judicial co-operation. [] This co-operation not only allows
participation in the training events and an opportunity to gain new knowledge
and abilities, but is a perfect tool to create mutual understanding between
judges and prosecutors from the region, tightening their mutual relations. It is
a perfect networking tool.
7.3.4.4. Despite the added value of a truly pan-European approach applied to training
activities, it is obvious that in order to address specific issues that sometimes only
target a small number of countries (mainly due to their geographical proximity or
long- established close links) some specific tools have historically been implemented
within the EU that focus on close bilateral or regional co-operation. Other examples of
regional cooperation in the area of judicial training can be found between the
BENELUX countries, Portugal and Spain, Spain and France, and the Baltic States.
7.3.5. Learning by Doing

Earlier in this report (see Chapter Six) the project team noted that training in small
groups while using interactive and real time training methods is an effective way of
transferring knowledge and skills. The active involvement of participants increases the
retention rate of training, whatever the topic. The respondents to the questionnaire
have given some quite original examples of Best and Promising Practices using the
method of learning by doing in EU law training and training on foreign legal systems.
The examples take different forms and shapes. However, the common feature is that
the participants contribute actively in the execution and/or preparation of the training
activity, for instance by producing materials, submitting case studies, giving
presentations, participating in role plays and acting as moderators.
7.3.5.1. A first example of a Best Practice in learning by doing is the EJTN Themis
competition for future judges and prosecutors from different EU Member States. In
this debating competition on international co-operation in criminal and civil matters,
April 2014
Page 99 of 247

Articles 5 and 6 of the ECHR, and on judicial ethics and deontology, the participants
have to prepare a written paper, give an oral presentation of the paper, including Q &
A, and discuss it with the jury. In the finals, there is a debate with other participants.
Through these assignments, the project aims to develop abilities related to the future
profession of the participants, such as communication skills, debating abilities, critical
and analytical thinking, logical reasoning and proper legal writing in a foreign
language.
The Themis competition has proven itself as a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No.
40].
7.3.5.2. A second example of a Best Practice in learning by doing is the EJTNs
Project Criminal Justice I - International Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters
European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) simulations,
initially conceived by the Centre for Judiciary Studies (CEJ) from Portugal. It consists
of a series of training seminars involving either two or three different EU countries.
Each seminar intends to recreate as accurately as possible a true environment of
judicial co-operation in criminal matters between European Judicial Network (EJN)
representatives.
7.3.5.3. In the first stage, participants are gathered in national groups in order to
examine the progress of cases inspired from actual or fictional facts. Each group is
asked to suggest the use of legal tools for judicial co-operation. They are then
expressly asked to issue the international requests for co-operation to the other
countries participating in the seminar that they deem to be adequate and fill in the
appropriate forms (normally, European Arrest Warrants (EAW), Letters Rogatory,
mutual recognition certificates etc.).
7.3.5.4. In the second stage, still in national groups, participants examine the
requests made by the other national groups in the seminar which were addressed to
their country. For each of these, they are asked to produce a decision according to the
applicable EU and national laws.
7.3.5.5. In the third stage, participants merge in mixed international groups in order
to explain, and have explained to them, the grounds for the national decisions made
on the international requests that were initially issued. They are also informed of any
April 2014
Page 100 of 247

particularities in relation to the execution of those requests in the other Member
States. This process sometimes takes place simultaneously in two different Member
States, via video-conferencing.
Finally, and on the basis of the answers provided (again in national groups),
participants are asked to find the best solution for their own cases. The course is
rounded off by two lectures on related issues.
7.3.5.6. This training model serves to give participants practice in drafting and
executing international co-operation requests on EAW, freezing orders or common MLA
demands; and on how to apply and use EJN and EUROJUST (while simulating their
roles). It provides them with the theoretical background about what they were asked
to do; and finally, it provides them with an international forum for discussion on the
above related issues. It is considered by the team a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet
No. 41].
7.3.5.7. A third example of a practice that uses the learning by doing methodology
was presented in Germany by the German Judicial Academy (GJA). The German
Judicial Academy and the Justice Academy of Turkey organised a one-week seminar
on cross-border domestic violence, in which four mock trials took place. The
interesting approach that was taken was that the participating judges from Germany
and Turkey themselves had to prepare and deliver the presentations at the seminars.
Moreover, the four mock trials were based exclusively on materials prepared
beforehand by the participants from both countries. And all roles in the mock trials
were played by the attendees. Thus, rather than consuming the training seminar, the
participants produced the seminar themselves. The participants underlined that one
had learned more about the other countrys judicial system and legal culture than
would have been possible with three weeks of theoretical lectures. As the GJA
indicated, it must be noted that this approach requires considerably more personal
investment (by the trainers) than organising a classical seminar. It is also of great
importance to select truly motivated participants. As this type of seminar was first
launched in 2012, the team can so far only call it a Promising Practice [See Fact
Sheet No. 42].
April 2014
Page 101 of 247

7.3.6. Development of EU law training materials at the pan-European level for

subsequent incorporation at the national level
7.3.6.1. ERA, the Academy for European Law, presented an interesting methodology
for training on EU law. Rather than organising a number of workshops on EU law and
cross-border topics, they developed a set of training modules that are made available
to any party or institution interested in the provision of judicial training. Recently, ERA
developed training modules on cross-border divorce and maintenance, on parental
responsibility in a cross-border context and on EU environmental law.37
The training modules are constructed as a trainers pack:
[] with information and guidelines on how to organise a workshop
implementing the module, a proposed workshop programme and
recommendations on methodology, an introductory e-Learning course, a list
of background materials for the training recipients, examples of former
trainers PowerPoint presentations, case studies with their suggested
solutions and a national section, providing information on legislation,
jurisprudence and representative publications on the application of European
family law in 28 Member States. Each training module may be implemented
through workshops of a suggested 2.5 day duration, providing attendees
with an in-depth analysis of the applicable EU legislative instruments and
their interaction with international and national provisions. [] Face-to-face
presentations are combined with practical exercises and interactive sessions
and IT-supported training is promoted.
7.3.6.2. This approach aims to be more cost-effective than the traditional workshop
approach, since time and efforts are invested in the creation of high-quality training
material that is both comprehensive and structured in a flexible way in order to be
reusable by any interested institution and organisation. Moreover, the training
modules are conceived in such a way as to address different training needs and for
use in both international and national training contexts.
7.3.6.3. The training modules are available free of charge to any interested training
provider. They have been used by the Judicial Academy of the Land of North RhineWestphalia and the Bulgarian National Institute of Justice. Parts of the civil justice
modules were used in seminars organised by the Judicial Academy of the Slovak
The methodology was invented by the European Commission and ERA took part in the implementation.
Everything was fully funded by the EU. In 2013 ERA applied for an action grant, in co-operation with other
EJTN members, for a project with a similar methodology on civil justice instruments.
37
April 2014
Page 102 of 247

Republic together with ERA, by the Judicial Training Centre and the Supreme Court of
Slovenia and by the Romanian National Institute for Magistracy (NIM). Therefore, the
team considers this practice to be a Good Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 43].
7.3.6.4. On a pan-European scale, the development of the training modules requires a
considerable investment of time and money. In 2013, for the implementation of a new
project on EU civil justice law, ERA secured the partnership of national judicial actors
from eight Member States and project teams were set up, including training
managers, researchers and e-Learning managers, who co-operated with numerous
national experts. ERA received financial support from the European Commission for
the development of the training modules, and, they stated that without this support it
would not have been possible to proceed with such a project.
7.3.7. Visibility of EU law content in domestic law training is ensured

Due to its unique nature, EU law is not always visible in domestic law. Judges and
prosecutors are not aware that an increasing number of their national legal provisions
are coloured by EU law. In order to raise this awareness, it is Good Practice to
indicate to what extent EU law is incorporated in domestic law training.
7.3.7.1. An example of how to do this was provided by the Dutch Training and Study
Centre for the Judiciary in the Netherlands (SSR). When EU law is dealt with in a
course, even to a minor extent, the image of an EU flag is placed at the course
description in the digital course catalogue.
This simple yet effective practice can be easily adopted by other judicial training
institutions. The team, therefore, considers it to be a Good Practice [See Fact Sheet
No. 44].
April 2014
Page 103 of 247

Chapter eight: assessment of participants performance in training and

the effect of the training activities
8.1 Introduction
Assessing participants performance in training and the effect of training activities in
general is extremely important for the proper management of training. This
assessment assists in understanding whether the training objectives have been
achieved; whether the training needs initially identified were properly addressed by
course development and delivery; whether the target group of the respective training
is satisfied by it; to what extent new knowledge and/or skills have been acquired;
whether resources invested in training are used in an efficient manner; and what new
training needs and gaps are identified after the delivery of the training.
There is a close interrelation between the assessment of training needs and evaluation
of training activities. In general, the evaluation of training activities demonstrates to
what extent the training needs have been successfully addressed by the training
activities. At the same time, evaluation of training activities helps to identify new or
further training needs. The two categories represent key elements of the whole
training circle of training needs assessment planning delivery evaluation (see
also Chapter Four).
There are several models for measuring the effect of training activities. Perhaps the
most popular is the training evaluation model developed by Donald Kirkpatrick. He
divides training evaluation38 into four graduated levels that essentially measure:
1. Reaction of trainees - what they thought and felt about the training?
2. Learning the resulting increase in knowledge or capability
3. Behaviour - extent of behaviour and capability improvement and
implementation/application
4. Results the effects on the business or environment resulting from the
trainee's performance
The Kirkpatrick model also identifies particular tools and methods that are appropriate
for the respective level of evaluation and its objective:
Implementing the Four Levels: A Practical Guide for Effective Evaluation of Training Programs by James
D. Kirkpatrick and Donald L. Kirkpatrick (1 Oct 2007).
38
April 2014
Page 104 of 247

The Kirkpatrick Model
Level Evaluation
type
(what is
measured)
Evaluation
description and
characteristics
Examples of
evaluation tools
and methods
Relevance and
practicability
Reaction
Reaction
evaluation is how
the delegates
felt about the
training or learning
experience.
'Happy sheets',
feedback forms.
Verbal reaction,
post-training
surveys or
questionnaires.
Quick and very easy to

obtain.
Not expensive to
gather or to analyse.
Learning
Learning
evaluation is the
measurement of
the increase in
knowledge before
and after.
Typically,
assessments or
tests before and
after the training.
Interview or
observation can
also be used.
Relatively simple to set

up; clear-cut for
quantifiable skills.
Less easy for complex
learning.
Behaviour Behaviour
Results
Observation and
evaluation measures interviews over
the extent to which time are required
learning is applied to assess change,
when back in the
relevance of
job.
change, and
sustainability of
change.
Measurement of
behaviour change
typically requires cooperation and skill of
line managers.
Results evaluation is
the effect on the
business or
environment by the
trainee.
Measures are
Individually not
already in place
difficult; unlike whole
via normal
organisation.
management
Process must attribute
systems and
clear accountabilities.
reporting the
challenge is to
relate to the
trainee.
Source: http://www.businessballs.com/kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm
April 2014
Page 105 of 247

8.2 Evaluation of judicial training

In the evaluation of judicial training there are several specific issues related to judicial
power which must be considered, the most important of them being judicial
independence.
In its opinion 4/200339 the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCEJ) highlights
the importance of the assessment of programmes and methods for the continuous
improvement of judicial training. However, the CCEJ warns that the evaluation of the
performance of participants in judicial training initiatives raises more questions. A
clear distinction should be made between the evaluation of participants in initial
training (where it exists) and in continuous training. The first is deemed appropriate
where initial training is part of the selection and appointment procedure. The second,
however, is considered inappropriate if it affects career development. In that respect
CCEJ recommends that in principle, participation in judges training initiatives should
not be subject to qualitative assessment.
In light of the above, it is clear that assessment of participants performance in
training or of the effect of the training activities can be a very sensitive topic at least
in some countries. This is why it should be properly conducted and used only for the
purposes of assessing the effectiveness of training. In general, great care must be
taken to ensure that evaluation of training activities (and training needs assessment,
because of their inter-connection) are not inappropriately used (by unauthorised
persons or institutions) to evaluate and assess the performance of judges (and
prosecutors, where applicable). This especially concerns tests that are used in some
countries either as a self-evaluation method or as a tool to measure individual or
group progress in training. In general, all the methods, tools and practices used in
judicial training evaluation must take into account judicial independence.
8.3 Judicial training: Kirkpatricks levels 1 and 2 evaluation

Based on the questionnaire responses, the experts concluded that most, if not all,
judicial training institutions perform regular evaluation of participants performance in
training and of the effect of training activities as a standard practice. The tools and
methods commonly used, such as feedback forms and participant satisfaction
questionnaires (both paper or web-based), tests, formal and informal consultations
39
CCJE (2003) Op. N 4, available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/co-operation/ccje/textes/Avis_en.asp
April 2014
Page 106 of 247

with judges and prosecutors, etc. cover in general Levels 1 and 2 (satisfaction and
knowledge) of Kirkpatricks 4-level evaluation model. There are some interesting
methods that have been identified:
8.3.1. In Belgium, the Judicial Training Institute (JTI) appoints a rapporteur amongst
the participants, especially in long (several day) training sessions with several trainers
and a large number of participants. The task of the rapporteur is to summarise
participants opinions on the content and quality of the training session during the
training, and to prepare a draft report. At the end of the training session the draft
report is submitted to the participants for approval and then sent to the JTI. This is
considered to be a Best Practice on how to receive summarised feedback information
from participants about the quality of the training in real time and to enable them to
formulate suggestions on how to improve it [See Fact Sheet No. 45].
8.3.2. In the Netherlands, the Training Centre for the Judiciary (SSR) requires
participants in the two-year leadership programme to make a final presentation
including policy advice, to the Council of the Judiciary that commissioned the training
programme. In this presentation they have to illustrate and demonstrate what they
have learned during the course. The delivery of certificates of achievement is
conducted by the participants themselves, accompanied by a short speech about the
performance and the progress of the other. It assesses and demonstrates the
increased knowledge and skills of the participants. Since this method is relatively
recent and is applied only for one particular training programme it is considered to be
a Promising Practice. The nature of this assessment motivates the participants to
achieve better performance and in addition contributes to an increase in public
confidence in the training of the Dutch judiciary [See Fact Sheet No. 46].
8.4 Judicial training: Kirkpatricks levels 3 and 4 evaluation

In their responses to the questionnaire, only a few of the judicial training institutions
referred to evaluation tools and methods that entirely or partially cover Kirkpatricks
Levels 3 and 4 (behaviour and environment), and which are either in existence or
being developed and tested. Some of them are also used as tools for training needs
assessment.
In Germany The Judicial Academy and some of the Lnder (Provinces) have recently
used long-term success questionnaires (follow-up questionnaires) in order to assess
April 2014
Page 107 of 247

the long-term learning success, possible behaviour changes of participants towards
training and the possible (positive) results these changes might have for the
respective courts and prosecution offices. Especially for modular training courses,
some German Provinces have developed specific questionnaires that are handed out to
participants midway through the training year, and which ask concrete questions on
the long-lasting effect of the previous modules held 3-6 months previously. Similar
questionnaires are under development for training at national level. This method
generally covers Kirkpatricks Levels 3 and 4, seems to have been successfully
implemented in several German Provinces and is about to be expanded at national
level, so it is considered as a Promising Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 47].
The Academy of European Law (ERA) has implemented an Evaluation and Impact
Assessment system of training that was developed for the workshops implementing
training modules in the area of EU family law for the European Commission.
Before the implementation of each workshop an initial needs' assessment
questionnaire is sent, together with the registration form, to interested participants
who are requested to provide an overview of their professional background, their
experience in the training topic and their motivation for taking part in the training.
This approach enables a more precise selection of applicants for the training event and
a clearer focus on their real professional needs.
In order to assess the implementation workshops efficiently, a twofold process is
introduced. All participants are asked to complete a detailed evaluation questionnaire
immediately after the end of the workshop, focusing more on the quality of the
workshop itself. Questions on the seminar content and methodology, the training
materials provided and the quality of the trainers contributions are also included in
these evaluation forms. Besides this immediate feedback, a mid-term evaluation with
an assessment of the results and impact of the workshop in the longer term is sent to
participants. By using various incentives, an average response rate of 90% for the
immediate evaluation and 50% for the mid-term evaluation is achieved.
This combined evaluation method generally covers Kirkpatricks Levels 1, 2 and 3 and
is also a good example of the inter-connection between TNA and training evaluation.
For these reasons it should be considered as a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 8
and 48].
April 2014
Page 108 of 247

The European Centre for Judges and Lawyers of the European Institute for Public
Administration (EIPA) has also introduced a post-training evaluation in addition to
the standard Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2 evaluation. Its objective is three-fold: a) to
assess the extent to which participants have had the opportunity to use the knowledge
acquired during the training event; b) to assess the extent to which the acquired
knowledge has helped participants to perform their work more efficiently; and c) to
assess whether in hindsight the training event could be improved.
The post-training evaluation normally takes place two to four months after the training
event and is mostly carried out via a web-based survey tool. Where the number of
participants is relatively low, telephone interviews are used instead of questionnaires
in order to achieve a more in-depth exchange.
In addition to its primary reason to control and improve the quality of training this
method is also used to identify current and potential future training needs and to
develop new training services.
Since the described evaluation method generally covers Kirkpatricks Level 3 and is
also a good example of the interconnection between TNA and Evaluation of Training, it
is considered to be a Best Practice [See Fact Sheet No. 49].
There are two other examples of methods that are still under development and/or
testing that are interesting to be mentioned and further followed:
8.4.1. In Poland the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution carries out an
assessment of the effect of the training activities using the standard Kirkpatrick Level
1 and 2 tools and methods. A new evaluation system, closely connected to the
competence profile under Chapter Four and based on a 360 assessment of the
individual judge or prosecutor, has been developed as a pilot project. Since this
process is ongoing and the results are expected in 2014 it is considered to be a
Promising Practice that requires further attention [See
April 2014
Page 109 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 6].

8.4.2. In Estonia the Supreme Court is testing the Court Practice Analysis (CPA)
described in Chapter Four also as a tool to assess the impact of judicial training over
the change in judicial performance, especially concerning changes in court practice
which is the core of judicial activity. It complements the standard Kirkpatrick Level 1
and 2 tools and methods that are currently used. Three examples have been given
that illustrate the potential of CPA as a long-term impact evaluation tool.
A CPA on compensation for non-patrimonial damage was conducted and
published in 2007. In the following two years three training sessions were
delivered and one legal article was published on the topic. In 2009 a second
CPA was conducted. It was found that in several decisions judges referred
directly to the first 2007 CPA. It was concluded that the first analysis and the
training conducted had had a direct impact on judges performance and court
practice. A third CPA on the same topic is planned for 2014.
In 2014 the Supreme Court is preparing to conduct a second CPA on Tort Law,
following the first one conducted in 2008. One of the aspects of this research
will be to assess whether and how the intensive training delivered in the
meantime on the same topic has affected changes in court practice.
In 2014 the Supreme Court is preparing to conduct a second CPA on violations
of administrative procedure, following the first one conducted in 2013. One of
the aspects of this research will be to assess whether and how the training
delivered in the meantime on the same topic has affected changes in court
practice.
This method of repeated CPAs appears to perform Kirkpatricks Level 4 evaluation.
Since the process is ongoing and some results are to be expected in 2014, this
approach is considered to be a Promising Practice that requires further attention
[See Fact Sheet No. 1].
April 2014
Page 110 of 247

Part two
Chapter nine: general conclusions and recommendations

9.1 Conclusions and recommendations under deliverable 3
Recommendations to improve the training of judges and prosecutors in national legal
systems and traditions as well as in European Union law and judicial co-operation
procedures, in terms of the topics or skills to be covered, the quality of the training
delivered and the attractiveness of the training for the judiciary to ensure increased
participation, as well as in terms of the promotion of dialogue and co-operation
between EU judges and prosecutors.
The main finding of this study is that notwithstanding the severe financial crises and
budgetary restraints that are currently affecting all the judicial training institutions
operating in the European Union, the project team has discovered a significant
number of training programmes that are examples of Best, Good or Promising
Practices. Judicial training for judges and prosecutors is generally in a healthy state.
Although there remain pockets of the geographical EU from which (for whatever
reason) no particular examples of Best Practice have emerged, the spread of Best,
Good and Promising Practices is nevertheless good and widespread across most of
Europe. This conclusion has emerged sui generis, as the team decided not to seek
artificially to establish an equal spread of practices to satisfy any perceived political
imperatives. In any event, it must again be stressed that the study was primarily
reactive (with some proactive follow-up through study visits: see Chapter Three
3.1.6).
9.1.1. Best practice definition

Conclusion: The first conclusion of the study is that the Training Guidance
Framework which the project team devised as the template for analysis provides an
effective source of guidance and provides the broad parameters for the required (or at
least expected) content of any full contemporary judicial training programme for
judges and prosecutors. The Framework should be seen as a living and developing
document capable of adaptation to changing circumstances. The team were
nevertheless unable to find any examples of Best Practice that were not rooted
firmly within the parameters of this Training Guidance Framework.
April 2014
Page 111 of 247

Recommendation:
1. The project team recommends that the Training Guidance Framework used
in this study should be used by judicial training institutions as a checklist when
assessing the content and overall orientation of their training programmes.
2. The project team recommends that the Training Guidance Framework
should be subject to regular scrutiny and where necessary refined and updated
to reflect developments in judicial training needs and requirements.
9.1.2. Transferability
Conclusion: The second conclusion relates to transferability, which includes in
particular the transfer of practices between civil and common law jurisdictions. The
study has found little basis for the oft-held assumption that these systems are
sufficiently different for there to be little to share between one another in the field of
training. Its findings suggest the opposite.
Recommendation: In light of the high level of transferability of training practices
identified by the study, judicial training institutions should actively explore the
potential to adapt the Best, Good and Promising Practices identified in this Report
to their own training environment.
9.1.3. Need for judicial training to engage with wider society

Conclusion: The third conclusion of the study is that many, if not most, of the best
contemporary judicial training practices are very eclectic in the range of professional
inputs they include in their training programme. This reinforces the reality that judging
does not take place in a vacuum exclusively within the ivory towers of the court or
hearing room. The best judicial systems are run by judges who understand the
economic, social and moral complexities of the world in which their adjudications take
place. The best training practices provide judges with the oxygen of engagement with
the wider society through trainers, placements and so forth, in order to fuel this
understanding.
Recommendation:
1. Judicial training programmes should include sufficient opportunities for
common activities between judges and prosecutors and other professionals,
both as trainers and participants. The team accepts, however, that the joint
April 2014
Page 112 of 247

training of judges, prosecutors and lawyers may be controversial in some
countries in relation to some topics.
2. Judicial training programmes for judges and prosecutors should include the
development of legal skills and a wide range of non-legal skills, thus ensuring a
greater openness towards modern society.
9.1.4. Need for interactivity

Conclusion: The fourth conclusion of the study is that the most effective training is
that which engages the participants directly in the process. The best training is
interactive. Judges generally learn best by doing. The report has highlighted a wide
range of inspiring and creative methods that have been devised and constantly
refreshed by resourceful training design and delivery, including face-to-face and
distance learning techniques. Judicial training is increasingly oriented to the
practicalities of judging by the use of case studies, mock trials and simulations as a
central part of training activities. But there is also an increasing focus on personalised
training and learning by doing, including the use of video to film the performance of
judges and prosecutors and to provide feedback.
Recommendation:
1. Judicial training programmes should ensure the active participation of judges
and prosecutors in the bulk of their training activities.
2. The environment in which participative training for judges and prosecutors
takes place must be made sufficiently safe and secure to enable participants to
exchange views and experiences through free expression and to learn from one
another, without external monitoring or interference.
9.1.5. Judicial skills and judgecraft

Conclusion: The fifth conclusion of the study is that the emergence of a greater
interest in training in judicial skills and judgecraft (as compared to substantive laws
and procedures) is significant and likely to become of greater importance in the
coming years. This area of training is particularly well-suited to crossing national
boundaries.
April 2014
Page 113 of 247

Recommendation: In recognition of its developing importance the European
Commission should support transnational training in judicial skills and judgecraft as

much as possible in line with its competences40.
9.1.6. New tools and methodologies

Conclusion: The sixth conclusion of the study is that the use of multi-faceted training
methods that seek to integrate a wide variety of training tools into one programme is
on the increase, and provides the best long-term framework for training judges in the
modern world. In the multi-faceted approach, electronic media and information
technology play an important role. The Internet, Moodle platforms, and e-Learning are
used in a number of Best, Good and Promising Practices. These tools seem to be
particularly effective in transnational training activities. By the use of these tools, it is
possible rapidly to pick up on a wide range of sources that also provide a costeffective way of organising and using cross-border contacts to disseminate and
provide access to materials and information.
Recommendation:
1. Judicial training institutions should make optimum use of new technologies,
taking particular note of Best Practice examples that emerge from this study.
2. Judicial training institutions should take maximum advantage of the
opportunities for cross-border collaboration in the development of these new
methodologies.
9.1.7. Training needs assessment and evaluation

Conclusion: The seventh conclusion of the study is that there is a close interrelation
between the assessment of training needs and the evaluation of training activities.
Most judicial training institutions use standard feedback forms after each training
event to test the satisfaction and new knowledge/know-how of participants.41 Some
Good Practices have been identified in that area. However, very few judicial training
institutions have introduced or are planning to introduce evaluation systems and
methods that aim to assess how much of the new knowledge/know-how acquired
40
The Commissions competence in relation to judicial training is limited to providing support and does not
extend to the provision of actual training (Articles 81 II h, 82 I c TFEU).
Kirkpatricks Levels 1 and 2 Evaluation
41
April 2014
Page 114 of 247

throughout the training is used by judges in the longer term,42 or how it impacts upon
the performance of the judicial system more generally.43 Some Good Practices have,
however, been identified. The process of introducing long-term evaluation by judicial
training institutions should be encouraged and supported, together with mechanisms
for the exchange of Best, Good and Promising Practices.
Recommendation:
1. When using the TNA process, individual needs should be balanced with
systemic and functional needs.
2. The results of training programme evaluations must be fed back into the
training cycle, in order to positively link training needs with training provision.
3. The evaluation of participants and training events should be followed up more
closely.
4. The process of introducing long-term evaluation by judicial training institutions
is to be encouraged and supported, together with mechanisms for cross-border
exchange of information on practices.
9.1.8. Training in European Union law

Conclusion: The eighth conclusion of the study is, a) that more and more judicial
training institutions are integrating training in EU law into their core national
programme, and b) that judicial training on EU law and procedure is most effective
when it is practice-oriented. Also, co-operation between judicial training institutions is
on the increase.
There is clear evidence that training in EU law can be made more effective when
embedded in a multi-faceted approach consisting of training activities, access to
information and networking opportunities, both locally ( through EU contact points),
nationally (using colleagues with expertise in EU law) and at European level. Training
activities on EU law should wherever possible be integrated into training activities
related to national law, rather than via separate events. EU law-based training
activities should ideally be offered as part of comprehensive programmes, not as oneoff events, and should be made relevant to the daily work practice of judges and
prosecutors. Practice-oriented and active forms of training, using real and fictitious
42
43
Kirkpatricks Level 3 Evaluation

Kirkpatricks Level 4 Evaluation
April 2014
Page 115 of 247

cases, are the most effective. Combining foreign (legal) language training and training
on EU law has also proven to be an effective approach to improve the required
language skills.
Notwithstanding this Best Practice of integrating EU law training into national law
training activities, training materials for this kind of training activities can be
developed at a pan-European level. The flexibility of these training modules allows for
adoption at national level.
Recommendations:
a) Considering the ever-increasing amount and importance of EU law, judicial
training institutions should continue to adapt their training programmes,
activities and methodologies to the European environment.
b) Exchanges between members of the judiciary and between those involved in
the design and delivery of EU law training should be encouraged as an
important source of information and inspiration and should be actively
facilitated.
c) When judicial training institutions plan their training programmes in EU law,
they should take particular account of the need for programmes to be
integrated in national law training and practice-oriented.
d) In recognition of its central importance, the European Commission should
encourage transnational training in EU law as a core priority.
9.1.9 Value of cross-border training

Conclusion: The ninth conclusion of the study is that there is significant value in
approaching judicial training on some issues via consortia that cross national
boundaries. Chapter Seven provides particular examples of such cross-national
operations, and the success of the EJTN itself underscores the value of such an
approach.
Recommendation: Judicial training institutions should make maximum use of the

benefits of structures and mechanisms in place to design and deliver cross-border
training programmes and other initiatives.
April 2014
Page 116 of 247

Part three
9.2 Recommendations under deliverable 4

Recommendations for the European Commission and/or the judicial training providers
and other relevant stakeholders regarding how best to hold regular fora as suggested
by the European Parliaments resolution on judicial training of 14 March 2012, at
which judges of all levels of seniority in areas of law where domestic and cross-border
issues frequently arise can hold discussions on a recent area or areas of legal
controversy or difficulty, in order to encourage discussion, build contacts, create
channels of communication and build mutual confidence and understanding".
9.2.1. The EJTN44 wonders if, while making this suggestion to the European
Commission, the Parliament was not basing this proposal upon a judicial training
scenario that no longer matches the reality. The judicial training environment, at both
national and international level and in relation to the areas of European Law, foreign
EU legal systems, judicial co-operation and linguistics has changed dramatically since
2011. At the same time, better information on what is being developed in these
particular areas has become fully accessible to policy decision-makers to an
unprecedented degree.
9.2.2. The EJTN and EU Commissions most recent statistics demonstrate that a
considerable effort has been made at national level to increase the number of judicial
training events where those areas are being addressed and the number of
participating judges and prosecutors. Such a reality brings entirely within reach the
numeric objectives set out by the European Commission in its most recent
Communication on Judicial Training, at least where the training of the members of the
judiciary is concerned.
9.2.3. Similarly, besides the Standard Exchange Programme and the new AIAKOS
Exchange Programme, the EJTN now offers a wide portfolio of 48 international training
activities that will be developed in 24 different Member States in 2014. The targeted
international audience will be reaching, if not surpassing, a figure close to 3,000.
When international attendance at other bilateral or multilateral activities organised by
the EJTN members is added to those included in the EJTN standard catalogue, then
the figure in 2012 exceeded 4,350. This does not include the national attendance at
The text and recommendations on Deliverables 4 and 5 were drafted by the EJTN internal Steering
Committee to the project.
44
April 2014
Page 117 of 247

those last training events or figures relating to those who participated in the Exchange
Programme and benefited from international contact while hosting foreign EU
colleagues (approximately 700).
9.2.4. Therefore, the EJTN believes that there is already under development a wide
series of events on which judges of all levels of seniority in areas of law where
domestic and cross-border issues frequently arise can hold discussions on a recent
area or areas of legal controversy or difficulty, in order to encourage discussion, build
contacts, create channels of communication and build mutual confidence and
understanding. This, therefore, fully meets the European Parliaments objectives.
9.2.5. As a consequence (and the EJTN still endorses the expansion of these training
possibilities if financial resources are made available for this purpose) it also
emphasises that in order to assure the necessary co-ordination and safeguard the
required judicial independence on training, any additional events targeting the above
goals (and as typical training events) should continue to be organised either within the
EJTN overall framework or by the EJTN members under the latters coordination.
9.2.6. Any questions relating to the contribution and involvement in this process of the
other European judicial stakeholders concerned with judicial training are dealt with in
LOT 4 of the current Tender Contract and the project team respectfully refers the
Commission to the conclusions of that particular project.
Conclusion:
a) The EJTN considers that a wide series of events (on which judges of all levels of
seniority in areas of law where domestic and cross-border issues frequently
arise can hold discussions on a recent area or areas of legal controversy or
difficulty, in order to encourage discussion, build contacts, create channels of
communication and build mutual confidence and understanding), are already
being offered or currently under development, therefore fully meeting the
European Parliaments objectives.
b) Although the EJTN still supports an increase in these training activities, this
study also emphasises that, a) to ensure the necessary co-ordination; and b)
to safeguard the required judicial independence on training, any additional
activities which target the above goals through typical training events should
continue to be organised either within the EJTN overall framework, or by EJTN
members under the latters co-ordination, or by other specialist institutions or
universities in close co-operation with the EJTN.
April 2014
Page 118 of 247

Part four
9.3 Recommendations under deliverable 5

Recommendations regarding the best ways to disseminate Best Practices and
promote exchanges of Best Practices between all the judicial training providers at all
levels in the EU.
The EJTN proposes adopting a dissemination strategy based on the following pillars:
1. After their approval, all documents submitted to the European Commission as a
result of the execution of the study overall report and recommendations and
compilation of the Best, Good and Promising Practices fact sheets will be
published on the EJTN website.
2. A special reference to this publication will be made in the news section of the
EJTN website.
3. In order for such practices to be used as a source of inspiration for other legal
professions when applying training techniques to their members, the EJTN also
strongly advocates the publication of the submitted Best, Good and
Promising Practices fact sheets in the e-justice Portal of the European
Commission, (eventually translated into the several official languages of the
European Union), along with an express reference to the EJTN and its
members commitment and availability to provide any further information in
relation to these practices whenever so required.
4. A general overview of the results of the study will be submitted to the EJTN
General Assembly in June 2014.
5. Shortly thereafter, a meeting of all Directors of Training amongst the EJTN
members will be organised with the goal of building upon the contents of all the
information gathered to date. This meeting will address separately the review
of the practices identified in each one of the areas targeted by the study a)
training needs assessment, b) innovative curricula or training plan, c)
innovative training methodology, d) implementation of training tools to favour
the correct application of EU Law and international co-operation, e) assessment
of participants performance in training and f) effect of training activities on
professional performance.
6. Simultaneously (but now operating at a lower level), the EJTN sub-Working
Group Trainers of Working Group Programmes will proceed to the analysis of
the practices directly concerned with the delivery of training in order to define
the best way to proceed with their diffusion among the European judicial
trainer community. Along with the use of other tools, this will most probably
require seminars to be organised under the supervision of this sub-working
April 2014
Page 119 of 247

group with a view to further analysis and dissemination of the Reports main
findings. This will include analysis of why the identified practices were put into
place, how they work and what results they have achieved together with an
indication of the operational and logistical requirements for their transferability
to other national training environments.
7. At the same time, the EJTN Working Group Exchange Programme will be
invited by the EJTN Secretary General to issue a recommendation so that all
future trainers exchanges organised within the EJTN Standard Exchange
Programme, and executed in the Member States where such Best, Good and
Promising Practices have been identified, shall partially focus on how they
work and wherever possible allow foreign trainers to have direct contact with
their live execution.
April 2014
Page 120 of 247

Part five
ANNEXE ONE:
ANNEXE TWO:
ANNEXE THREE:
ANNEXE FOUR:
ANNEXE FIVE:
ANNEXE SIX:
April 2014
Questionnaire
Table of responses
List of background reports
Progress table
Chart of Best, Good and Promising
Practices
Fact sheets
Page 121 of 247

Annexe one: questionnaire
QUESTIONNAIRE
Study on Best Practices in Training

of Judges and Prosecutors
PLEASE READ THE INTRODUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING

THE QUESTIONNAIRE
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING THE ANSWERS TO
THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS 1 JUNE 2013
April 2014
Page 122 of 247

PART ONE: PRACTICAL INFORMATION

Name of the organisation: ...
Name of the contact person for this study: ...
E-mail address:
In this questionnaire, we ask you to provide us with a description of Best, Good or
Promising Practices in six categories:
1) Training needs assessment;
2) Innovative training methodology;
3) Innovative curricula or training plan in any given particular area;
4) Implementation of training tools to favour the correct application of EU law;
5) Implementation of training tools to favour international judicial co-operation;
6) Assessment of participants performance in training/effect of the training
activities.
We are interested in practices at national AND at regional and local level; e.g.
practices used for training and learning at local/regional courts and prosecutors
offices.
We kindly request you to provide, if appropriate, at least one Best, Good or Promising
Practice for each category, where you believe the practice falls within the above
definitions. Should you wish to include any other Best Practices under the same
category, please feel free to do so. However, you should not send in more than ten
selected practices in total, and we are interested in quality, not quantity.
It is possible that a practice fits more than just one category. For instance, you may
have an innovative methodology for training on international judicial co-operation.
This practice can be presented under both Categories 1 and 4. If this is the case, we
ask you to present the practice in just one category, while indicating that it also
applies to the other category.
For each Best, Good or Promising Practice, we would like to know:
a) What the practice consists of;
b) Why the practice was adopted;
c) How the practice was adopted, implemented and executed;
d) What results have been achieved so far.
Your answers to this questionnaire will be analysed by the team of experts presented
above. When filling in the questionnaire, we urge you to bear in mind that the
members of this team may not be aware of certain specific characteristics of your legal
April 2014
Page 123 of 247

system and the system of judicial training in your country and institution. Therefore,
we ask you to be as clear as possible when describing the identified practices.
Moreover, for each practice there is room to provide any additional background
information that is needed to understand the local connotations of the practice.
In addition to the Best, Good or Promising Practices, this study also covers the issue of
how you identify and assess the training needs of the judiciary. You will find a further
question on this topic at the end of the questionnaire.
We would appreciate it if you could provide the information on your identified practices
in English. However, answers provided in your local language will be translated into
English and studied by the team of experts. Please feel free also to add, as annexes to
your answers, any pertinent documents, even if written in your own language.
April 2014
Page 124 of 247

PART TWO: QUESTIONNAIRE ON BEST

PRACTICES
Where an identified best practice is better described as a good or promising
practice, please state.
Category 1: Training needs assessment

Please describe any Best Practices you may have while identifying the training needs
of judges and prosecutors, both in the field of initial and permanent education if
applicable and how this is assessed by your institution.
Under this category we are looking for Best Practices that concern the identification or
assessment of training needs of judges and prosecutors. E.g.: who identifies the needs
and how often is this done? What needs are identified: of the individual magistrate, of
the courts/prosecutors offices, of the national courts system/prosecution service, of
society as a whole? What tools are used to identify or assess the training needs?
For the description of (each of) the Best Practice(s), please use the format below.
Title of the Best Practice:
1.1 Please give a short and concrete description of the practice. (max. 250
words)
1.2 Why was this practice adopted? (max. 250 words)
What issues or problems needed to be solved? What need was addressed
by this practice?
1.3 How was this practice adopted, implemented and executed? (max. 300
words)
E.g.: What conditions had to be in place and what resources (people, time,
money) had to be acquired before the practice could be introduced? How
much time was needed to implement the practice?
Was there any resistance to the introduction of the practice, and if so, how
did you tackle this?
1.4 What results have been achieved so far by using this practice? (max. 300
words)
What makes this practice a Best, Good or Promising Practice? How did/do
you assess the effectiveness of this practice?
1.5 Additional remarks on the economic, geographical and/or cultural context
that affect the adoption and implementation of this practice. (max. 300
words)
April 2014
Page 125 of 247

Category 2: Innovative curricula or training plan in any given particular

area
Please describe any (max. two) Best, Good or Promising Practices related to
innovative curricula or training plan in any given particular area used by your
institution and/or in your country. For the members who provide both initial and
continuous education: please, state clearly whether the practice concerns initial
training or continuous education.
Under this category we are looking for Best Practices that concern the structure of the
training activities, as well as the scope of the training programme. E.g. how can
individual training activities be combined or sequenced in such a way that it positively
affects the impact or result of each activity? Or, what is a Good way to combine
substantive/procedural law training with training on non-legal topics? Or, how should a
curriculum or training plan be designed to suit the practical needs of the judges and
prosecutors?
words)
by this practice?
words)
words)
What makes this practice a Best, Good or Promising Practice? How did/do
you assess the effectiveness of this practice?
words)
Category 3: Innovative training methodology

Please describe any (max. two) Best, Good or Promising Practices related to
innovative training methodologies used by your institution and/or in your country.
April 2014
Page 126 of 247

For the members who provide both initial and continuous education: please, state
clearly whether the practice concerns initial training or continuous education.
In judicial training a wide range of training methodologies is being used: centralised
programmes/decentralised programmes; face-to-face training, blended learning
training and web-based training; lectures, seminars, workshops, individual
assignments; class-room learning and learning at the workplace; integrated
programmes for judges/prosecutors; bespoke programmes for individual
courts/prosecutor offices; streamed programmes per judicial rank, etc.
Under this category we are looking for Best Practices that indicate what works Best, in
what circumstances and for which target groups. Bear in mind that using simulations,
case studies or workshops is not considered a Best Practice but any innovative
approach while conducting any of those may be.
words)
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Why was this practice adopted? (max. 250 words)

by this practice?
How was this practice adopted, implemented and executed? (max. 300
words)
What results have been achieved so far by using this Best, Good or
Promising Practice? (max. 300 words)
What makes this practice a Best Practice? How did/do you assess the
effectiveness of this as a Best Practice?
Additional remarks on the economic, geographical and/or cultural context
words)
Category 4: Implementation of training tools to favour the correct

application of EU law
Please describe any (max. two) Best, Good or Promising Practices related to the
implementation of tools to favour the correct application of EU law in the training of
judges and prosecutors by your institution and/or in your country.
April 2014
Page 127 of 247

Under this category we are looking for Best Practices that concern ways to improve
the training on EU law for judges and prosecutors. E.g. is it Best to integrate EU law in
courses on national law, or should EU law be taught in separate training activities?
How can judges and prosecutors be made (more) aware that EU law is part of their
national law? How can EU law training be made practical and of everyday use for the
judges and prosecutors?
words)
by this practice?
words)
words)
effectiveness of this Best Practice?
that affect the adoption and implementation of this Best Practice. (max.
300 words)
Category 5: Implementation of training tools to favour international

judicial co-operation
implementation of tools to favour international judicial co-operation in the training of
judges and prosecutors by your institution and/or in your country
Under this category we are looking for Best Practices that concern ways to improve
the training on international judicial co-operation, both in civil and criminal matters,
April 2014
Page 128 of 247

for judges and prosecutors. E.g. how can training on international judicial co-operation
be made practical and of everyday use for the judges and prosecutors?
words)
by this practice?
words)
5.4
5.5
What results have been achieved so far by using this Best Practice? (max.
300 words)
300 words)
Category 6: Assessment of participants performance in training / effect

of the training activities
assessment of participants performance in training/effect of the training activities
used by your institution and/or in your country.
Under this category we are looking for Best Practices that concern ways to assess the
impact of training activities on the daily work performance of judges and prosecutors.
E.g. what tools can be used in this assessment (questionnaires, assessment at the
workplace?). When should the assessment take place and by whom? (How) are the
results of the assessment used in the improvement of the training? (How) are results
of the assessment used in the evaluation of the magistrate?
April 2014
Page 129 of 247

words)
by this practice?
words)
6.4
6.5
April 2014
What results have been achieved so far by using this Best Practice? (max.
300 words)
300 words)
Page 130 of 247

Annexe two: table of responses

Table of responses received
RESPONSES RECEIVED
COUNTRY/ORG.
NATIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
1. Austria
Ministry of Justice
2. Belgium
Judicial Training Institute (IGO - IFJ)
3. Bulgaria
National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
4. Croatia
Judicial Academy
5. Czech Republic
Judicial Academy
6. Estonia
The Supreme Court of Estonia
7. Finland
Ministry of Justice
8. France
National School for the Judiciary (ENM)
9. Germany
Federal Ministry of Justice
10. Hungary
Judicial Academy
Office of the Prosecutor General
11. Italy
Italian School for the Judiciary (SSM)
12. Latvia
Judicial Training Centre
13. Poland
National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution

(KSSIP)
14. Portugal
Center for Judiciary Studies (CEJ Portugal)
15. Romania
National Institute of Magistracy (NIM)
16. Slovenia
Ministry of Justice
17. Spain
Center of Legal Studies (CEJ Spain)

Spanish Judicial School (CGPJ)
18. Sweden
Swedish Courts of Administration
19. The Netherlands
Training and Study Center for the Judiciary (SSR)
20. United Kingdom (England Judicial College [training responsibilities also

and Wales)
extend to certain reserved tribunals in Scotland
and Northern Ireland].
April 2014
Page 131 of 247

1. EIPA
European Institute of Public Administration
2. EJTN
European Judicial Training Network
3. ERA
Academy of European Law
NO RESPONSE
COUNTRY
INSTITUTE
1. Cyprus
Supreme Court of Cyprus
2. Denmark
Danish Courts of Administration
3. Greece
National School of Judges
4. Ireland
Judicial Studies Institute
5. Lithuania
National Courts of Administration
6. Luxembourg
Ministry of Justice
7. Malta
Judicial Studies Committee
8. Slovakia
Judicial Academy
April 2014
Page 132 of 247

Annexe three: list of background reports

Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), opinion no. 4
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/capacitybuilding/source/ccje%282003%29op4_en.pdf
Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Questionnaire on judges
training and Questionnaire on the conduct, ethics and responsibility of judges
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/co-operation/ccje/textes/Travaux4_en.asp
European Network for the exchange of information between persons and
entities responsible for the training of judges and public prosecutors, Analysis
of the answers to three questionnaires addressed by the bureau to the
members of the Network
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/co-operation/cepej/Lisbon/Analyse_en.pdf
Questionnaire "A" on the structural and functional features of training
institutions of judges and prosecutors
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/lisbonnetwork/questionnaires/questionA_en.asp
Questionnaire ''B'' on the role of training institutions in recruitment and
initial training of judges and prosecutors
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/lisbonnetwork/questionnaires/questionB_en.asp
Questionnaire "C" on the role of training institutions as regards in-service
training of judges and prosecutors
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/lisbonnetwork/questionnaires/questionC_en.asp
entities responsible for the training of judges and public prosecutors, Minimum
Corpus of the Council of Europe standards (Lisbon Network)
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/co-operation/lisbonnetwork/rapports/RLBU_2008_2MinimumCorpus_en.pdf.
entities responsible for the training of judges and public prosecutors, General
Report (6th Meeting)
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/co-operation/lisbonnetwork/rapports/RapportSabato_en.pdf
The Menu for Justice Project Report - Daniela Piana (Editor), Philip Langbroek
(Editor), Tomas Berkmanas (Editor), Ole Hammerslev (Editor), Otilia Pacurari
(Editor), 2013
April 2014
Page 133 of 247

MFJ, Minutes Report of the Workshop 'Building Blocks for legal and judicial
training' programme and list of speakers available at:
https://www.academicprojects.eu/menuforjustice/default.aspx
Danish Red Cross, Good Practices in response to trafficking in human
beings, 2005, at:
http://www.ungift.org/docs/ungift/pdf/knowledge/1088_drk_human_manual_w
eb%20(2).pdf
entities responsible for the training of judges and public prosecutors, the
specific methodologies to increasingly take into consideration the corpus of the
Council of Europe law in judicial training institutions and to integrate them in
the initial and in-service training programmes:
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/co-operation/cepej/Lisbon/Expert_reports/RLRAP_2007_1_en.pdf
entities responsible for the training of judges and public prosecutors, the
quality of the training of magistrates and common European standards for
judicial training:
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/co-operation/cepej/Lisbon/Expert_reports/RapportSelegean_en.pdf
Thomas, C., Review of Judicial Training and Education in Other Jurisdictions,
2006, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/judicialinstitute/docs/Judicial_Training_Report.pdf
Consejo General del Poder Judicial, White paper on the ongoing training of
judges, 2007, http://www.iojt.org/library/Libro%20blanco-ing.pdf
Armytage, L., 'Training of Judges: Reflections on Principle and International
Practice', European Journal of Legal Education, vol. 2, no. 1, 2005, pp. 21-38,
at: http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=4700
International Network to Promote the Rule Of Law, Consolidated Response to a
Query posted by Libor Chlad, EUJUST LEX Program, Council of the European
Union, regarding conducting and evaluating judicial training,
http://inprol.org/publications/measuring-the-impact-of-judicial-training and
http://inprol.org/sites/default/files/publications/2011/cr07005.pdf
Study on the amendment of the Council Decision
2005/681/JHA setting up CEPOL activity: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/homeaffairs/pdf/policies/police_co-operation/cepol_final_report_100512.pdf
European Commission (2011), Report on European Judicial Training, available
at:
April 2014
Page 134 of 247

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/files/report_on_european_judicial_training
_2011_en.pdf
European Commission (2012) report on European Judicial Training, available
at:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/files/european_judicial_training_annual_re
port_2012.pdf
Judicial Training in the EU Member States: Study for the European Parliament,
2011. Available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=EN
Compilation of briefing notes for the Workshop on Judicial Training at the
European Parliament on 28 November 2013:
www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201311/20131126ATT74944
/20131126ATT74944EN.pdf
April 2014
Page 135 of 247

Annexe four: progress table

DATE
2013
FEBRUARY 1 Feb
20 Feb
27 Feb
MARCH
APRIL
12 Mar
29 Apr
MAY
JUNE
11 Jun
JULY
10 Jul
24-25
Jul
AUGUST
26 Jul
31 Jul
29 Aug
SEPTEMBER 10 Sep
OCTOBER
April 2014
14-15
Oct
ACTIVITY
Signature of the contract
Kick off meeting with EU COM/desk officer
List of junior/senior experts /contact points are
submitted
First meeting of the Experts' Laboratory at the
EJTN
Concept of training Best Practices is settled
Inception note is submitted to the EU COM
Laboratory of experts start the draft of the
questionnaire
First meeting of the EU COM Steering Committee
Questionnaire is concluded and sent to contact
points
Contact points start answering the questionnaire
Translations begin to take place
Second meeting of the Experts' Laboratory at
the EJTN
Assessment phase begins
Project Steering Committee meeting at the EJTN
Contact points conclude answering the
questionnaire
Translations are concluded
Third meeting of the Experts' Laboratory at the
EJTN
Assessment phase continues
Progress meeting with EU COM / desk officer
Interim report is submitted to the EU COM
Fourth meeting of the Experts' Laboratory
Second Progress meeting with EU COM / desk
officer
Assessment phase concludes
Study visit England Business of judging
PROGRESS
STATE
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
Page 136 of 247

NOVEMBER 8 Nov
19-20
Nov
DECEMBER 3 Dec
16-18
Dec
31 Dec
2014
JANUARY
15 Jan
20 Jan
FEBRUARY 5 Feb
7 Feb
April 2014
First selection of Best Practices take place

COMPLETED
Second meeting of the EU COM Steering COMPLETED
Committee
Fifth meeting of the Experts' Laboratory

Study visit Bulgaria EU Law and Distance COMPLETED
Learning
Second selection of Best Practices take place
Recommendations starts to be drafted
Study visit Estonia Court Practice Analysis
Draft Final report starts to be drafted
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
Study visit France Management Training
COMPLETED
Final list of Best Practices is concluded

Draft Final report is concluded
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
ACTIVITY
PROGRESS
STATE
Second Project Steering Committee meeting at COMPLETED

the EJTN
Sixth (final) meeting of the Experts Laboratory - COMPLETED
Barcelona
Final recommendations are concluded
Fact sheets are concluded
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
Draft Final report is submitted to the EU COM
COMPLETED
Third Project Steering Committee meeting at COMPLETED

the EJTN
Page 137 of 247

Annexe five: chart of best, good and promising practices

Fact
sheet
Title of practice
Type of practice
number
Category: Training Needs Assessment (TNA)
1
Promising Practice
Structured Procedure to Determine Good Practice
2
Training Needs
3
Training Gap Analysis
Promising Practice
Mental Health Tribunal Whole
4
Promising Practice
Programme Assessment
5
Assessing Regional Training Needs Promising Practice
Creating Competency Profiles for
6
Promising Practice
Judges and Prosecutors
7
Training of Coroners
Best Practice
Training Needs, Evaluation and
8
Best Practice
Impact Assessment
9
Individual Learning Need

Assessment
Best Practice
Country/Institute
Estonia
Romania
Belgium
England and Wales
Croatia
Poland
England and Wales
Academy of
European Law (ERA)
European Institute
For Public
Administration
(EIPA)
Unclassified
UP 1
Participatory Assessment
France
Practice45
Category: Innovative Curricula or Training Plan in any Given Area
Planning a Comprehensive and
10
Germany
Needs-orientated Annual Training Best Practice
10 - i
England and Wales
Curriculum
11
11 - i
12
13
14
Delivery of Training to Judges and

Prosecutors in conjunction with
Other Professions
Combining Different Disciplines in
the Delivery of Training for Judges
and Prosecutors
Simulated Mock Tribunals and Role
Play Programmes
Simulated Mock Tribunals
Good Practice (BG) Bulgaria

Best Practice
England and Wales
(E&W)
Best Practice
Italy
Best Practice
England and Wales
Best Practice
Hungary
'UP refers to Unclassified Practice. In the course of the study a number of practices were brought to the
experts' attention which were of interest, but did not in the view of the experts warrant a special
classification sui generis. These we now describe as UPs'
45
April 2014
Page 138 of 247

Fact
sheet
Title of practice
number
15
16
17
17 - i
17 - ii
17 - iii
17 - iv
18
18 - i
18 - ii
19
20
Close Monitoring of Communication

Skills, through the use of
Best Practice
Simulation
Best Practice (FR)
Leadership and Management
Training
Promising Practice
Leadership and Management
Training
Promising Practice
A Comprehensive Package to
Deliver Large-Scale Training on new
Legal Instruments
Best Practice (RO,

FR)
Good
Practice(ERA)
Joint Delivery of Training

Programmes in Unusual
Promising Practice
Partnerships
Joint Delivery of Training
Programmes with External Research Best Practice
Institute
21
Court Mentors
21 - i
Category: Innovative Training Methodology
Comprehensive Online e-Learning
22
Strategy
23
Blended e-Learning
23 - i
Comprehensive, Multi-Faceted
24
Approach for Training in EU-Law
25
26
27
April 2014
Type of practice
Country/Institute
France
France
Finland
Belgium
England and Wales
EIPA
The Netherlands
Romania
France
Academy of
European Law (ERA)
Portugal
Good Practice
Poland
Bulgaria
The Netherlands
Best Practice
Bulgaria
Best Practice
The Netherlands
Spain
Promising Practice
Bulgaria
Recording, Broadcasting, Online

Podcasting, Recording and
Transcription of Training Activities Best Practice
and their Availability on the
Internet
E-boxes and Video-conferencing
Good Practice
Real Case Study, Developed in Real
Time, through the Use of VideoBest Practice
conferencing
Romania
Portugal
Spain
Page 139 of 247

Fact
sheet
Title of practice
number
28
29
29 - i
29 - ii
30
31
32
33
34
35
Recruitment of Trainers and

Evaluation of Trainers Performance
Organisation of Decentralised
Training to Reflect Local Training
Needs and Issues
Learning in Large Teams The
Snowball Methodology
Small teams Decision Writing
Self-reflection on Decision Writing
Small teams The Business of
Judging
The Judge in Society: Deontology,
Ethics and Relations with the Media
Self-reflection in Communication
Skills
Media communication Interactive
and Multi-layer Media Training
Type of practice
Country/Institute
Good Practice
Romania
Good Practice
Bulgaria
Romania
France
Best Practice
England and Wales
Promising Practice
Good Practice
The Netherlands
Estonia
Best Practice
England and Wales
Good Practice
Spain
Best Practice
Estonia
36
Good Practice
Germany
Category: Implementation of Training Tools to Favour the Correct Application of
EU Law and International Judicial Co-operation
Access to EU Law via Electronic Unclassified
UP 2
Portugal
Means
Practice
38
Comprehensive,
Multi-Faceted
Approach for Training in EU-Law Best Practice
and International Judicial Cooperation (Eurinfra model)
GAIUS
Best Practice
39
39 - i
Combining Training on EU Law and

International Co-operation with Good Practice
Legal Language Training
UP 3
Continual Networking (Real and Unclassified

Virtual)
Practice
40
THEMIS
Best Practice
41
Criminal Justice I International

Judicial Cooperation in Criminal
Matters EAW and MLA
Simulations
European Judicial
Training Network
(EJTN)
Best Practice
European Judicial
Training Network
(EJTN)
37
April 2014
The Netherlands
Italy
Spain
Hungary (Poland,
Czech Republic,
Slovakia)
Romania
Page 140 of 247

Fact
sheet
Title of practice
number
42
43
Type of practice
Learn by doing while Increasing

Knowledge of Judicial Co-operation Promising Practice
and the Domestic Law of other EU
Member States
Development of EU Law Training
Materials at the Pan-European Level Good Practice
for Subsequent Incorporation at the
National Level
Ensuring Visibility of EU Law
Good Practice
Content in Domestic Law Courses
Country/Institute
Germany
Academy of
European Law (ERA)
44
The Netherlands
Category: Assessment of Participants Performance in training and the Effect of
the Training Activities
45
The Rapporteur
Best Practice
Belgium
46
Show What you have Learned
Promising Practice The Netherlands
Long-term Assessment of Training Promising Practice Germany
47
Activities
48
Evaluation and Impact Assessment

System
Best Practice
49
Post-training Evaluation
Best Practice
April 2014
Academy of
European Law (ERA)
European Institute
For Public
Administration
(EIPA)
Page 141 of 247

Annexe six: fact sheets
Promising, Good and Best Practices

Fact
sheet Title of practice
number
Category: Training Needs Assessment (TNA)
1
2
Structured Procedure to Determine Training Needs
3
Mental Health Tribunal Whole Programme
4
Assessment
5
Assessing Regional Training Needs
Creating Competency Profiles for Judges and
6
Prosecutors
7
Training Needs, Evaluation and Impact
8
Assessment
Country/Institute
Estonia
Romania
Belgium
England and Wales
Croatia
Poland
England and Wales
(ERA)
European Institute for
Public Administration (EIPA)
France
9
Individual Learning Need Assessment
UP 146 Participatory Assessment
Category: Innovative Curricula or Training Plan in any Given Area
Planning a Comprehensive and Needs-orientated
10
Germany
Annual Training Curriculum
10 i
England and Wales
11
Bulgaria
Delivery of Training to Judges and Prosecutors in
conjunction
with
Other
Professions
11 i
England and Wales
Combining Different Disciplines in the Delivery of
12
Italy
Training for Judges and Prosecutors
13
14
15
16
Simulated Mock Tribunals and Role Play

England and Wales
Programmes
Hungary
Close Monitoring of Communication Skills, through France
the Use of Simulation
France
46
'UP refers to Unclassified Practice. In the course of the study a number of practices were brought to
the experts' attention which were of interest, but did not in the view of the experts warrant a special
classification sui generis. These we now describe as UPs'
April 2014
Page 142 of 247

Fact
Country/Institute
number
Finland
17
Belgium
17 i
England and Wales
17 ii Leadership and Management Training
EIPA
17 iii
The Netherlands
17 iv
Romania
18
A Comprehensive Package to Deliver Large-Scale France
18 i
Training on New Legal Instruments
18 ii
(ERA)
19
Joint Delivery of Training Programmes in Unusual Portugal

Partnerships
Joint Delivery of Training Programmes with Poland
External Research Institute
Bulgaria
Court Mentors
The Netherlands
20
21
21 i
Category: Innovative Training Methodology
22
Comprehensive Online e-Learning Strategy
Bulgaria
23
The Netherlands
Blended e-Learning
23 i
Spain
Comprehensive, Multi-Faceted Approach for Bulgaria
24
Training in EU Law
25
26
27
28
29
29 i
29 ii
30
31
32
33
34
April 2014
Recording, Broadcasting, Online Podcasting,

Recording and Transcription of Training Activities
and their Availability on the Internet
Real Case Study, Developed in Real Time, through
the Use of Video-conferencing
Recruitment of Trainers and Evaluation of Trainers
Performance
Romania
Portugal
Spain
Romania
Bulgaria
Organisation of Decentralised Training to Reflect Romania
Local Training Needs and Issues
France
Learning in Large Teams The Snowball England and Wales
Methodology
Small Teams Decision Writing
The Netherlands
Estonia
Small Teams The Business of Judging
England and Wales
The Judge in Society: Deontology, Ethics and Spain
Relations with the Media
Page 143 of 247

Fact
Country/Institute
number
35
Self-reflection in Communication Skills
Estonia
Media Communication Interactive and Multi-layer Germany
36
Media Training
Category: Implementation of Training Tools to Favour the Correct Application of
EU Law and International Judicial Co-operation
UP 2 Access to EU Law via Electronic Means
Portugal
37
38
39
39-i
UP 3
40
41
42
43
Comprehensive, Multi-Faceted Approach for

Training in EU Law and International Judicial Co- The Netherlands
operation (Eurinfra model)
GAIUS
Italy
Combining Training on EU Law and International Spain
Hungary (Poland, Czech
Co-operation with Legal Language Training
Republic, Slovakia)
Continual Networking (Real and Virtual)
THEMIS
Criminal Justice I International Judicial
Cooperation in Criminal Matters EAW and MLA
Simulations
Learn by doing while Increasing Knowledge of
Judicial Co-operation and the Domestic Law of
other EU Member States
Development of EU Law Training Materials at the
Pan-European Level for Subsequent Incorporation
at the National Level
Ensuring Visibility of EU Law Content in Domestic
Law Courses
Romania
Network (EJTN)
Network (EJTN)
Germany
(ERA)
44
The Netherlands
Category: Assessment of Participants Performance in training and the Effect of
the Training Activities
45
The Rapporteur
Belgium
46
Show what you have Learned
The Netherlands
47
Long-term Assessment of Training Activities
Germany
48
Evaluation and Impact Assessment System
(ERA)
49
April 2014
European Institute for

Public Administration (EIPA)
Page 144 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 1

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
1
Training Needs Assessment (TNA)
ESTONIA
PROMISING PRACTICE
Court Practice Analysis in Estonia is a process of studying court
Institution
contact details
Supreme Court of Estonia

17 Lossi St
50093, Tartu
Estonia
Phone: + 372 7 309 002
Fax: + 372 7 309 003
Email: info@riigikohus.ee
Website: http://www.nc.ee
decisions (and if necessary, other court-related documents) in all

their relevant aspects, in order to identify problems in the uniform
application of the law by courts.
In the course of such research, one or more analysts (staff members
of the Supreme Court Administration) ascertain the scope of
problems that may exist in the application of legal norms.
The results of this analysis, along with the conclusions drawn on how
courts apply certain legal statements and how they construe them,
is presented in a written document, which is published and
disseminated to judges as an unbinding source of information or
reference and are used as training materials.
This mechanism aims at assessing systemic problems of application
of the law and it is not used for evaluation or disciplinary purposes.
Although the primary objective of the Court Practice Analysis is to
act as a tool towards a more uniform application of the law, while
providing judges with a focused, practically-oriented and concise
analysis of court practices, it is also used as a complementary
source for collecting information on training needs.
Other comments Although every training institution for the judiciary in the EU has
implemented its own system to assess training needs, some

particularly interesting ideas were gathered while carrying out the
current study. The interest of this Estonian Court Practice Analysis,
which is qualified as a PROMISING PRACTICE, is that it may be
also used as a tool for assessing the impact of training.
For this purpose, all available sources of information are used and
assessment is integrated within the overall needs assessment, as
while identifying the impact of the previous training it can also be
April 2014
Page 145 of 247

ascertained what is still missing and where any additional required
training should focus.
It is argued that a change in case law in an area on which
information was provided by a re-analysis carried out in the same
field following training, constitutes a good indicator of the impact of
training. The above system may complement other tools and
methods that may be currently in use and matches the Kirkpatrick
Level 4.
Court Practice Analysis documents may also be used as training
materials. The system may have some impact on the design and
delivery phases of the training process, as the analysis units may
provide support on the identification of trainers. It is argued that an
analyst who is preparing analytical materials in a given field may be
suited to introduce the topic for judges during lectures, seminars or
round tables.
April 2014
Page 146 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 2

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
Institution
contact details

Bd. Regina Elisabeta nr. 53, Sector 5
050019, Bucharest
Romania
Phone: + 40 021 310 21 10
Fax.: + 40 021 311 02 34
E-mail: office@inm-lex.ro
Website: http://www.inm-lex.ro
Structured Procedure to Determine Training Needs

ROMANIA
GOOD PRACTICE
Information about the training needs of judges and prosecutors in

Romania is collected, combining multiple sources of information
(judicial trainers, courts, prosecutors offices, professional
associations of magistrates, other legal professionals, and the results
of the evaluation of training carried out in previous years, etc.).
The topics on the list included in the training catalogue of a given
year are also cross-checked with the number of participants
applications.
Recently an online system has been put into place in order to
facilitate this, and judges and prosecutors are invited to mark the
requested topics for the next year or to formulate new proposals.
This enables every course to receive a given rate of demand which
highlights the most requested courses and also facilitates financial
planning.
This data constitutes the basis for a training needs analysis and
subsequent elaboration of the annual training plan, involving the
national training institute and the High Council of the Judiciary.
implemented its own system to access training needs, some

current study.
The practice described above could be considered as a GOOD
PRACTICE.
April 2014
Page 147 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 3

Fact Sheet
Number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
Institution
contact details
Judicial Training Institute (IGO/IFJ)

Avenue Louise 54
1050 Brussels
Belgium
Phone: + 32 2 518 49 49
Fax: + 32 2 518 49 79
E-mail: info@igo-ifj.be
Website: http://www.igo-ifj.be

BELGIUM
PROMISING PRACTICE
In Belgium, the Judicial Training Institute has developed a
competences matrix for use in training needs assessment at the

operational level.
Initially, the views of court presidents and chief prosecutors were
gathered in relation to the current and future competences of
judges, prosecutors and court staff working in their courts or offices.
Subsequently the Belgian Ministry of Justice and the High Council of
Justice were asked to assess those expected competency levels.
Then, on the basis of these competence standards, the Judicial
Training Institute compared the current competences with the
required competences. The result of this analysis might reveal a gap
which would determine in what particular fields training should be
focused.
The plan envisages that such analysis should be carried out during
the next four-to-five years.

current study.
This could be considered as a PROMISING PRACTICE that
deserves a close follow-up.
It has also been noted that the positive aspects of this practice
relate to the higher level of involvement of the Presidents of the
Courts and of the Chief Prosecutors in the process of assessing
training needs which are now being placed at an organisational
(courts and prosecution offices) systemic level.
April 2014
Page 148 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 4
Fact Sheet
Number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
Institution
contact details
Judicial College
Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France
London SW1H 9LJ
United Kingdom
April 2014
Mental Health Tribunal Whole Programme Assessment

ENGLAND
PROMISING PRACTICE
The Mental Health Tribunal (MHT) in England (Wales has its own
mental health tribunal) offers an annual choice-based programme of

training events to its Judicial Office Holders (JOHs), covering a
range of relevant topics. All JOHs are required to attend two days
training every year. MHTs training programme is regularly reviewed
by its National Training Committee (NTC), and its contents are
modified to enable new topics to be addressed. Detailed evaluation
of each training event is appropriate and is carried out with the aid
of an online questionnaire that is completed by attending JOHs. This
single-course evaluation of all sessions (and of the extent to which
the objectives of the individual course have been achieved) is then
analysed by the NTC.
It was, however, recognised that this routine and event-focused
feedback process, although an essential element of quality
assurance and an important means of facilitating feedback to the
NTC, provided too little information about the successful of the
overall programme in meeting members needs, and what changes,
if any, might be needed to address any shortfalls in style and
substance in the current programme and the approach to training.
As a consequence, in 2012 the Mental Health Tribunal organised an
evaluation of its entire training programme (the jurisdiction includes
over 1000 judicial office holders). This involved the use of an online
questionnaire and data analysis designed a) to review the existing
training provided to members of the jurisdiction and, b) to enhance
the content and quality of training to be provided in the future.
Although individual training courses were already evaluated in a
structured way, the programme leaders wanted to drill further down
and create an opportunity to take a wider view of how and what
training is provided across the Tribunal.
Some questions addressed practical matters; others questions
addressed JOHs preferred course formats (e.g. whether training
events should be offered to all members of MHT or whether some
courses should be targeted at specific specialist member groups);
and other questions addressed issues such as the style, pace, level,
balance, and perceived quality of the overall programme.
Page 149 of 247

Phone: + 44 203 334 0700
Fax: + 44 203 334 5485
Email: magistrates@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk
Website: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/training-support/judicialcollege
Other comments The questionnaire produced an excellent response, and as a result of
the findings the Tribunal training team are in the process of

adjusting aspects of the whole programme to reflect the views of
their members. This is therefore still to be considered as a
PROMISING PRACTICE.
April 2014
Page 150 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 5

Fact Sheet
Number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key Features
Institution
contact details
Judicial Academy of Croatia

Ulica grada Vukovara 49
10000 Zagreb
Croatia
Phone: + 385 1 371 4540
Fax: + 385 1 371 4549
E-mail: pravosudna.akademija@pravosudje.hr
Website: http://www.pak.hr
Assessing Regional Training Needs

CROATIA
PROMISING PRACTICE
Due to the specific geographical context of the country, the Judicial

Academy in Croatia has created five regional training centres
favouring, in some situations, a decentralised training approach. As
there are differences in the training needs of judges and prosecutors
from different regions (e.g. Maritime Law, which is specific to the
coastal regions), the Judicial Academy has introduced a training
needs assessment mechanism intended to provide a solution to that
problem, while balancing the purely decentralised training approach
with a nationally-coherent centralisation of the planning of such
training.
Training needs assessment questionnaires are sent annually to
stakeholders (Ministry of Justice, universities and members of the
Programme council) as well as to the co-ordinators of the regional
training centres (usually a judge and/or prosecutor).
The summarised answers to these questionnaires are sent to the
Programmes Council of the Academy empowered to decide on the
topics to be included in the programme for the following year.

current study. Due to the specialities of each national system the full
transfer of this practice is not likely to be possible.
This PROMISING PRACTICE was adopted two years ago and
enables a centralised response to an acute regional diversity.
April 2014
Page 151 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 6

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
Institution
contact details
National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSIP)

Ul. Krakowskie przedmiescie 62
20-076 Lublin
Poland
Phone.: + 48 81 440 87 10
Fax: + 48 81 440 87 11
E-mail: sekretariat@kssip.gov.pl
Website: http://www.kssip.gov.pl
Creating Competency Profiles for Judges and Prosecutors

POLAND
PROMISING PRACTICE
A comprehensive training needs assessment based on the creation

of competency profiles for judges and prosecutors is currently being
implemented in Poland.
These profiles are created by a group of experts composed of judges
and prosecutors from courts of different levels and jurisdictions and
university teachers and will address judges and prosecutors working
in different jurisdictions or performing specific tasks (e.g. criminal
law judges, civil law judges, commercial law judges, family law
judges, prosecutors, prosecutors dealing with commercial cases,
judge/prosecutor trainers and judge/prosecutor mentors of
trainees).
These profiles are to comprise both soft key competences and
professional roles/duties as well the hard competences (e.g.
knowledge in the field of law) meaning that, for instance, guidelines
will also be established on expected ethical behaviour and attitudes
of judges and prosecutors resulting from current legal provision and
expected daily practice.
As each judge and prosecutor is individually assessed by an
inspector a judge or prosecutor with higher seniority normally
working in a higher instance court the system will enable an
effective comparison of the actual competences of each judge with
the competences contained in the general personal profile, thus
giving important indications on the areas where training should be
focused.
At present, only profiles for judges, prosecutors, trainers and
mentors working in the field of commercial law have been
completed.
April 2014
Page 152 of 247

current study.
This recently implemented Polish system also aims to serve as a
basis for a new evaluation scheme based on the same 360 degree
assessment of each individual judge and prosecutor.
Therefore, this practice may become an interesting example of the
interconnection between training needs assessment and evaluation
of training. However, as the process is still ongoing and tangible
results are only expected in the future, it could be considered as a
PROMISING PRACTICE which deserves to be closely monitored.
April 2014
Page 153 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 7

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
Institution
contact details
Judicial College
London SW1H 9LJ
United Kingdom
Phone: + 44 203 334 0700
Fax: + 44 203 334 5485
ENGLAND and WALES
BEST PRACTICE
Following the reassignment of the training of coroners in England

and Wales from the Ministry of Justice to the Judicial College in
2012 a process coinciding with the appointment of a new Chief
Coroner and the establishment of a new Coroner Training Committee
(whose members were also supposed to be involved in the selection
of trainers and delivery of training) the Judicial College proceeded
with a comprehensive functional training needs assessment in order
to assist the newly-appointed management and training bodies.
An online questionnaire was developed and all 1,300 coroners and
coroners officers were invited to comment on their training needs.
Members of the previous coroners training groups were assigned
the task of developing it. A list of coroners skills and responsibilities
was elaborated based on the job advertisements for coroner roles
around the country. Three weeks were given to the target group
members to complete the questionnaire. They were also asked to
express their willingness to participate in telephone interviews.
On the basis of the data gathered, a final report on coroners
training needs was delivered to the Chief Coroner and the Training
Committee, serving as a basis for the development of training plans.

current study.
However, the practice described above could be considered as a
BEST PRACTICE whenever the required approach demands the
training institution to respond quickly and effectively to a recently
awarded competence in a new area of training.
April 2014
Page 154 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 8

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Institute
Type of practice
Key features
Institution
contact details
8
Training Needs, Evaluation and Impact Assessment
ACADEMY OF EUROPEAN LAW (ERA)
BEST PRACTICE
This Evaluation and Impact Assessment System was specially

designed to evaluate the outcome of the workshops organised to
implement the training modules in the area of EU family law for the
European Commission.
Two to three months before the implementation of each workshop,
an initial needs assessment questionnaire is sent, together with the
registration form, to interested (or registered) participants. Through
this short questionnaire the applicants provide an overview of their
professional background and their experience in the area of EU law
in general, and, more concretely, in the area of EU family law.
Questions are intended to investigate the reasons why judges and
prosecutors have registered to participate, along with their training
expectations when attending the workshops.
Through the evaluation of this data, training organisers are able to
gather important information on the professional profile of the
applicants, their level of knowledge of the topics involved and,
consequently, to define whose training priorities will best match the
objectives of the programme.
This preliminary training need assessment has a potential double
effect on the efficiency of training in the areas of selection of
registered applicants and the definition of applicants individual
training needs.
Academy of European Law (ERA)
Metzer Allee, 4
54295 Trier
Germany
Phone: + 49 651 93737-0
Fax: + 49 651 93737-773
E-mail: info@era.int
Website: http://www.era.int

current study.
The mechanism described above represents a good example of the
interconnection between training needs assessment and evaluation
April 2014
Page 155 of 247

of training, since it has been built as a twofold process 47of immediate
and mid-term evaluation of the effect of the training . It can be
considered as a BEST PRACTICE.
47
See Fact Sheet No. 48.
April 2014
Page 156 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 9

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Institute
Type of practice
Key features
Institution
contact details
9
Individual Learning Need Assessment
EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (EIPA)
BEST PRACTICE
This system may be considered as part of an Individual Learning

Need Assessment.
Once a given topic is identified as matching a general training need
and a training programme is designed to meet that need, the
programme is opened for the registration of participants. Two-tofour weeks before the training starts the registered participants are
asked to complete a tailor-made questionnaire with a two-fold
objective:
To assess the participants current level of knowledge and
experience on the topic
To investigate specific issues of their interest/concern.
If proper feedback is given on the answers provided in the above
questionnaire, the practice will be adequate to increase the
efficiency of training in several ways:
Training becomes fine-tuned to the audiences average level
of knowledge of the subject
The initial training plan may be redesigned in order to meet
specific and/or unforeseen individual needs
Practical information of immediate interest to the participants
is provided and
Individualised answers to pre-asked questions relating to the
daily work of participants may also be given.
European Institute for Public Administration (EIPA)
2 Circuit de la Foire Internationale
1347, Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Phone: + 352 426 230-1
Fax: + 352 426 237
Email: info-lux@eipa.eu
Website: http://www.eipa.nl/en/antenna/Luxembourg

current study.
April 2014
Page 157 of 247

EIPA has argued that this method also represents a good example of
the interconnection between training needs assessment and
evaluation of training since it is coupled with a mid-term evaluation
on the effects of training through the use of a web-based survey tool
or direct telephone interviews. Currently, EIPA is considering the
possibility to have these questionnaires available as online surveys.
It can be considered as a BEST PRACTICE.
April 2014
Page 158 of 247

Fact Sheet UP 1
Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Key features
UP 148
Participatory Assessment
FRANCE
In France, trainee judges continuously assess the quality of their

initial training and make suggestions and proposals aimed at
improving the training system.
Every pre-service trainee is asked to fill in a detailed questionnaire
about the study period of his or her training at the ENM. This
questionnaire is available online on ENMs website at the end of the
8-month-long study period in Bordeaux.
The questionnaire asks trainees to self-assess their improvement
and to determine whether they have acquired the skills their training
should have brought them. Trainees are not obliged to fill out the
questionnaire, but it is explained to them that the questionnaire is
important to help the ENM improve its training curricula/courses. It
can take up to 3 hours to answer the questionnaire because of the
large number of questions. The answers are of course anonymised.
Around 75% of the trainees filled in the questionnaire last year.
The ENM has set up a mechanism of continuous assessment of its
in-service curricula. Each class of trainees is divided into small
groups of approximately 20 people for workshop activities. In each
small group a delegate is elected. The delegates meet with the
director of studies, without trainers, once a month to assess and
discuss the training and see how to improve it in real time. The
director of studies then drafts a report, which is disseminated among
the trainers. Therefore, it is possible to amend the content or form
of the training courses by taking into consideration the remarks of
the delegates.
Each year, three or four of the delegates of the small groups engage
in a long- term assessment process in co-operation with the director
of studies. The task of these delegates is to brainstorm on the
content of the training courses, the organisation of the curricula and
the pedagogy, and then make remarks or proposals to improve the
study period at the ENM. They begin their work around three months
after the beginning of the study period in the ENM. They do not stop
this work at the end of the study period, but work on during the
court internship of 10 months which follows the study period. Thus
they can assess the content of the study period and the pedagogy of
the ENM once they are immersed in courts and need to use what
they have learnt during the study period.
48
classification sui generis. We now describe these as UPs'
April 2014
Page 159 of 247

These delegates remain in touch with the director of studies and also
with the other trainees in the class, who can let them know how to
improve training at the ENM.
While they are carrying out their court internships, these delegates
also work with the delegates of the next class who are studying at
the ENM at the same time. It enables the direction of studies to
obtain detailed feedback on the study period.
This assessment tool has proved to be very efficient. Trainees
generally bring very interesting ideas, which are often integrated
into the training curricula. For instance, self-study periods were
added to the curriculum last year.
Institution
contact details
April 2014
National School for the Magistracy (ENM)

8, Rue de Chanoinesse
75004 Paris
France
Phone: + 33 1 44 41 88 20
Fax: + 33 1 44 41 88 21
Email: enm-info-di@justice.fr
Website: http://www.enm-justice.fr
Page 160 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 10

Fact Sheet
10
number
Title of practice Planning a Comprehensive and Needs-orientated
Category of
Innovative Curricula or Training Plan in any Given Area
practice
Country
GERMANY
Type of practice BEST PRACTICE
Key features
In Germany, section 2 of the Administrative Agreement of the
Federation and the 16 States of 1 March 1993 on the German

Judicial Academy states that judges and public prosecutors should
be provided with further training in their respective areas of
expertise, but also with knowledge and experience of political,
social, economic and other scholarly developments. This regulation
defines fixed percentages in relation to the different fields of
training.
Accordingly, only 45-50% of the courses can be allocated to strictly
legal issues conferences, some 25-30% of the annual events should
adopt a multi-disciplinary approach (e.g. law and medicine, law and
internet, law and ethics, law and religion, etc.) while the remaining
should be geared towards the improvement of other soft skills.
The justification for this practice is that the programme planners
should not only take into account as many detected training needs
as possible, but also have a system in place to maintain them as
protected training categories.
Institution
contact details

Trier Conference Centre (Institute of the Federal State of RhinelandPalatinate)
Berliner Allee 7
54295 Trier,
Germany
Phone: + 49 65 1 93 61 119
Fax: + 49 65 1 30 02 10
E-mail: trier@deutsche-richterakademie.de
Website: http://www.deutsche-richterakademie.de
Wustrau Conference Centre (Institute of the Federal State of
Brandenburg)
Am Schloss 1
16818 Wustrau,
Germany
Phone: + 49 33 92 5 8 97 333
Fax: + 49 33 92 5 8 97 202
Email: wustrau@deutsche-richterakademie.de
April 2014
Page 161 of 247

Other comments It is now widely recognised across Europe that adequate training of
judges and prosecutors should not rely only on hard skills (legal and
purely judicial topics) but that it should also focus on soft skills
(multidisciplinary approaches, other areas of knowledge, ethics,
rhetoric, communication, media training, memory training, vocal
training, mediation, psychology of the testimony and so on). The
BEST PRACTICE mentioned above reflects a good example of how
such an approach should be followed.
April 2014
Page 162 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 10 i

Fact Sheet
10 i
number
Title of practice Planning a Comprehensive and Needs-orientated
Category of
practice
Country
ENGLAND and WALES
Key features
The Judicial College of England and Wales states publicly, in its
Strategy Document, that its training activities will be organised

based on three main elements for judicial training:
Substantive law, evidence and procedure and, where
appropriate, subject expertise;
The acquisition and improvement of judicial skills including,
where appropriate, leadership and management skills;
The social context within which judging occurs.
Institution
contact details
Judicial College
Ministry of Justice , 102 Petty France
London SW1H 9LJ
United Kingdom
Phone: + 44 203 334 0700
Fax: + 44 203 334 5485
Other comments It is now widely recognised across Europe that adequate training of
judges and prosecutors should not rely only on hard skills (legal and
purely judicial topics) but that it should also focus on the soft skills
(multidisciplinary approaches, other areas of knowledge, ethics,
rhetoric, communication, media training, memory training, vocal
training, mediation, psychology of the testimony and so on). The
BEST PRACTICE mentioned above (10 i) provide good examples
of how such an approach should be adopted.
April 2014
Page 163 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 11

Fact Sheet
11
number
Title of practice Delivery of Training to Judges and Prosecutors in Conjunction
with Other Professions
Category of
practice
Country
BULGARIA
Type of practice GOOD PRACTICE
Key features
Whenever it becomes clear that the work of judges and prosecutors
cannot be examined separately, as it may intermingle with a variety

of other professions, both legal and non-legal, some training
institutions highlight the added value of the training provided to a
combined audience.
It is claimed that this approach is very successful, based on the
added value for each target group of participants who are able to
see how a given process develops from another professions
viewpoint. This enables all the players within and outside the judicial
field to demonstrate understanding and a higher level of awareness
towards the justice administration as a whole.
In Bulgaria, a generic blended approach towards training is applied
across the board in many aspects of judicial training. Training
activities have been expanded to include: blended training groups
within and outside the judiciary, blended training teams, blended
training formats and blended institutional trainings within and
outside the judiciary. The blended training groups are composed of
various professionals and may include: judges, prosecutors, judicial
investigators, judicial administration, investigating police, Ministry of
Justice employees, bank legal experts, media experts/journalists.
This approach has proven to be very successful, as it is valuable for
every target group of participants to be able to see the process from
another professions viewpoint. This allows all the players within and
outside the judicial community to develop an understanding and a
higher level of awareness of the justice administration as a whole.
National
Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Institution
14
EkzarhYossif
contact details BG 1301 Sofia Str.
Bulgaria
Phone: + 359 2 9359 100
Fax.: + 359 2 9359 101
Email: nij@nij.bg
Website: http://www.nij.bg
Other comments Training institutions may wish to consider the transferability of the
system described above, which can be qualified as a GOOD
PRACTICE, in particular circumstances if they are empowered to
organise training events addressed to other professions other than
their own or in partnership with other national institutions.
April 2014
Page 164 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 11 - i

Fact Sheet
11 i
number
Title of practice Delivery of Training to Judges and Prosecutors in Conjunction
with Other Professions
Category of
practice
Country
ENGLAND and WALES
Key features
Whenever it becomes clear that the work of judges and prosecutors
cannot be examined separately, as it may intermingle with a variety

of other professions, both legal and non-legal, some training
institutions highlight the added value of the training provided to a
combined audience.
It is claimed that this approach is very successful, based on the
added value for each target group of participants who are able to
see how a given process develops from another professions
viewpoint. This enables all the players within and outside the judicial
field to demonstrate understanding and a higher level of awareness
towards the justice administration as a whole.
In England and Wales, at the Judicial College judges and specialist
non-judge members (medical and financial specialists) train together
in the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal, while also
delivering training in tandem. This enables the training providers to
use case-specific examples from these areas of work, so that a
realistic and detailed discussion, both legal and subject-specific, can
occur.
The complex factual matters for which specialist knowledge is
required may be explained and interpreted by the specialist
members, while the judges bring their legal knowledge to the case
studies, so new law can be explored, discussed and integrated into
the specialist issues.
The real effectiveness is thought to be in fostering a greater rapport
between judges and the non-legal members, and a better
understanding of and respect for the skills that each professional
discipline has and brings to the tribunal. This feeds into good
tribunal experiences on both sides of the table, as good teamwork
will lead to better outcomes, both in terms of the efficiency of
hearings and the user experience. This is now considered to be the
appropriate way to train where possible, indeed, where different
professional disciplines engage in a tribunal hearing together it
seems odd now to envisage wholly separate training.
Institution
contact details
April 2014
Judicial College
London SW1H 9LJ,
United Kingdom
Page 165 of 247

Phone: + 44 203 334 0700
Fax: + 44 203 334 5485
Other comments Training institutions may wish to consider the transferability of the
system described above, which can be qualified as a BEST
PRACTICE, in particular circumstances if they are empowered to
organise training events addressed to other professions other than
their own or in partnership with other national institutions.
April 2014
Page 166 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 12
Fact Sheet
12
number
Title of practice Combining Different Disciplines in the Delivery of Training
for Judges and Prosecutors
Category of
practice
Country
ITALY
Key features
In Italy, a training programme has been devised that seeks to
extend the initial training of judges to include an in-depth analysis of

the social, political and economic context in which the justice system
operates. This practice aims to introduce into the initial training
curriculum content that should make young judges and prosecutors
better aware of the economic, social, political and cultural context in
which their judicial activity will take place.
The rationale for this approach, which has been incorporated directly
into Italian guidelines for initial training, is that it is important to use
training to develop economic, social, and cultural awareness
amongst the judiciary in an epoch in which for a number of reasons
(e.g. development of media and social media, multiculturalism and
multi-ethnicity, economic crises, and rapid developments in biology
and medicine), the application of the law cannot be separated from
knowledge of social sciences and other related disciplines.
Institution
contact details

Via Tronto n 2
00198 Rome
Italy
Phone: + 39 685271204
Fax: + 39 685271270
Email: segreteria@scuolamagistratura.it
Website: http://www.scuolamagistratura.it
Other comments The immersion of trainees, during initial training, in institutions

outside the judicial system for a given period of time is considered to
be a BEST PRACTICE if the national training schedule and the
established training priorities so permit.
The programme seeks explicitly to reflect the values set down in
Article 56 of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States on judges:
independence, efficiency and responsibilities
April 2014
Page 167 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 13
Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
13
Simulated Mock Tribunals and Role Play Programmes
ENGLAND and WALES
BEST PRACTICE
In their recent series of continuous training seminars, the Property

Chamber in England and Wales identified a number of areas of
jurisdiction and practice in which training was required. It was
decided to incorporate the relevant law topics into a scripted mock
hearing of an application.
Delegates working in groups of five or six were asked to determine
the issues at large in syndicate groups. Each of the topics was then
addressed in turn as part of the training event through scripted
hearing accompanied by small formal presentations and plenary
discussion. As well as addressing issues of law, the mock hearing
was scripted to demonstrate issues of case management and
conduct of a hearing, using interactive role play involving a great
deal of spontaneous intervention. The players were the trainers,
supported by two delegates who were nominated to sit on the mock
tribunal.
The training was in the form of a two-day seminar (12.5 hours in
total).
Wishing to avoid subjecting participants to two days of formal
lectures, the training team also wanted to make the training as
topical and relevant as possible. The opportunity to view the areas of
case management, law and practice in the context of a tribunal
hearing and then receive instruction and information made the
learning outcomes more relevant. It also enabled the trainers to use
a variety of training methods, which made the seminar more
interesting and enjoyable for delegates.
Judicial College
London SW1H 9LJ
United Kingdom
Phone: + 44 203 334 0700
Fax: + 44 203 334 5485
Other comments The use of mock trials is already a training practice in use in the
great majority of national training institutions within the EU. The
BEST PRACTICE detailed above is used as an example of how legal
topics may be addressed within this interactive context.
Institution
contact details
April 2014
Page 168 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 14

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
14
Institution
contact details
National Office for the Judiciary (Hungarian Academy of Justice)

Postal address: 1363 Pf.: 24 Budapest, Visiting address: Szalay u.
16
1055 Budapest
Hungary
Phone: + 36 1 354-4100
Fax: + 36 1 312-4453
Email: obh@obh.birosag.hu
Website: http://www.birosag.hu/obh

HUNGARY
BEST PRACTICE
In Hungary, court secretaries (assistant judges) have to practise at
a court for at least one year in order to be eligible to apply for an

effective judge's position.
During the court secretary's period of practice they have to take part
in mandatory training organised by the Judicial Academy, including
mock trial sessions.
This particular module lasts for one week. The mock trial takes place
at the Hungarian Academy of Justice where two training rooms are
permanently furnished as courtrooms.
The court secretaries who take part in the training work on the basis
of a case study and play all the roles: e.g. in the case of a criminal
procedure the victim, the accused person, witnesses, the defence
lawyer, the prosecutor and the judge (panel).
The mock trial sessions are video-recorded and played back to the
participants for analysis with the help of tutor judges and
psychologists. At the end of the training each participant receives a
DVD containing his/her first court trial.
great majority of the national training institutions within the EU.

Although there may be other ways to achieve a similar result, the
described mechanism prepares the trainee well for leading court
hearings. Because of its particular characteristics and the way it
involves trainees in every aspect of the simulation, we consider this
to be a BEST PRACTICE.
This practice is transferable but it would be more lifelike if proper
training rooms (furnished as courtrooms) were available at the
training centres.
April 2014
Page 169 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 15

Fact Sheet
15
number
Title of practice Close Monitoring of Communication Skills, through the Use of
Simulation
Category of
practice
Country
FRANCE
Key features
The main objective of the following teaching sequence found in
France is to familiarise trainee judges and prosecutors with different
interview techniques that are relevant to the conduct of criminal

hearings, oral requisitions or chairing hearings.
This practice achieves two specific purposes:
To prepare the trainee not only to chair the criminal hearing
but also to lead interviews. This requires specific skills (e.g.
on how to lead a debate).
This specificity lies, of course, in both the nature of the litigation
(family issues, childhood in danger, measures to protect vulnerable
people) and in the more intimate character of the chamber hearing.
To work on the procedural aspects of the interview or public
hearing, under the supervision of a judge and also on the
behaviour of the magistrate (listening skills, adaptability,
positioning, ability to raise a statement, opening the debate,
closing of an interview, prevention of incidents, clarification of
remarks) in respect of ethical and professional rules.
Each simulations sequence is performed in small groups under the
supervision of a judge and a psychologist who specialises in issues
relating to childhood in danger, family issues or vulnerable people.
Trainer judges may belong to the permanent teaching staff of the
school but also may be invited guests. Psychologists are occasional
speakers or fee-paid associate teachers.
During the simulation, the trainee is expected to work not only on
the procedural framework of speaking at the hearing with regard to
ethical and professional rules, but also on the basic rules of
interviewing: objectivity, creating a relationship with the defendant
and the parties, listening, ensuring a professional attitude,
preventing an incident and concluding the interview.
In order to enable each participant to perform adequately, these
simulations last a full day for the chamber hearings and 2/3 days for
criminal hearings.
Each sequence is filmed to enable the auditor to subsequently
identify the qualities and weaknesses of his/her performance during
a debriefing phase.
The psychologist uses his or her insight to comment on the elements
April 2014
Page 170 of 247

of non-verbal behaviour that can interfere with the smooth running
of the hearing.
Institution
contact details

75004 Paris
France
Phone: + 33 1 44 41 88 20
Fax: + 33 1 44 41 88 21
great majority of national training institutions within the EU.

Nevertheless, although quite time consuming both in preparation
and delivery the described mechanism is a BEST PRACTICE.
It is easily transferable as it only requires the logistical resources
referred to above.
April 2014
Page 171 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 16

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
16
Institution
contact details

75004 Paris
France
Phone: + 33 1 44 41 88 20
Fax: + 33 1 44 41 88 21
April 2014

FRANCE
BEST PRACTICE (plus CADEJ as a PROMISING PRACTICE)
Judges in France are expected to engage in five days of continuous
training every year. They select their courses from the training
prospectus published annually, covering eight general themes. One
theme is Administration of Justice, and includes such topics as the
tools of management (including running budgets), change
management, human resources and risk management, managing
stress, techniques of evaluation, measurements of efficiency, and
the interface between judicial and public policy. Courses typically run
for three days, although one course runs for 21 days, spread over
seven modules.
These courses are available to all French judges on a self-selecting
basis. In addition the ENM offers further programmes designed for
specific managerial purposes. The first programme is a bespoke
series of courses designed to assist judges appointed to a particular
management post and includes management training for New
Secretary Generals, Judges as Departmental Heads within a
Jurisdiction, New Heads of Jurisdiction, New Heads of Jurisdiction:
One Year Later, and a Training Plan of Heads of Jurisdiction
(addressed to judges with at least three years of seniority in their
role as head of the jurisdiction).
More recently, ENM has introduced a further programme designed to
prepare judges interested in future management functions within a
judicial entity (department heads, head of jurisdiction etc.) but who
are not yet in such positions of responsibility. It consists of a broad
training programme dealing with major institutional, administrative
and societal issues during a cycle of 10 modules of three days per
month. The programme is called the Cycle Approfondi dEtudes
Judiciaires (CADEJ). A unique feature of this course is that in
addition to judges it is attended by a small number of trainee
leaders and managers from other professions, for example the
prison service and the gendarmerie.
Page 172 of 247

Other comments The approach above constitutes a BEST PRACTICE, although its
transferability will require significant prioritisation of resources in

national training institutions. The new CADEJ course for those
aspiring to future leadership and management positions is a
PROMISING PRACTICE in its early stages of development.
April 2014
Page 173 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 17

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
17
Institution
contact details
Ministry of Justice
Postal address: Po Box 25
00023 Valtioneuvosto
Visiting address: Etelesplanadi 10
Helsinki
Finland
Phone: + 358 2951 6001
Fax: + 358 9 1606 7730
E-mail: oikeusministerio@om.fi
Website: http://www.oikeusministerio.fi

FINLAND
PROMISING PRACTICE
Finland has adopted a system of management and leadership
training, providing continuous management training every year to all

levels of leadership in their organisations. The main target of the
management training has been to adapt the leaders to the
management by results system operating in the state
administration, and to strengthen their competences in leadership,
personnel management, creating a good work climate etc.
In addition, senior judges have also been given training in the
competences necessary to lead the application of law by setting the
goals for each court with their resident judges, including such
matters as case allocation, balancing the workload of judges, the
need for uniformity in the handling times of cases and the
application of law, and dealing with independence issues.
Other comments This programme is a PROMISING PRACTICE in a state of

responsive development. We are likely to see exponential growth in
such activities in the coming years.
April 2014
Page 174 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 17 i

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
17 i
Institution
contact details

Avenue Louise 54
1050 Brussels
Belgium
Phone: + 32 2 518 49 49
Fax: + 32 2 518 49 79

BELGIUM
PROMISING PRACTICE
In Belgium, a course and coaching in project management for
judges, prosecutors and court staff members has been developed to

encourage better co-operation and exchange of information between
members of the judiciary and their staff members. After being
trained in project management techniques, the participants receive
customised coaching in order to specify their objectives and to build
up their own project management plan. After a few months of
practice work on the project management plan, the projects are
presented by participants at a forum, with a view to becoming new
benchmarks for Good Practices. The ultimate aim of this course is
to make the justice system more efficient by using better processes
and appropriately adapted management tools.
Other comments The Belgian practice is a PROMISING PRACTICE in a state of

April 2014
Page 175 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 17 - ii

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
17 ii
Institution
contact details
Judicial College
London SW1H 9LJ
United Kingdom
Phone: + 44 203 334 0700
Fax: + 44 203 334 5485

ENGLAND and WALES
PROMISING PRACTICE
In England and Wales, the Judicial College is in the process of
developing a leadership and management development programme

for judges in all jurisdictions who have leadership and management
responsibilities (Leadership and Management Judges: LMJs).
Following consultation with a large number of senior judges, judicial
human resources and external bodies, the first programme was
launched in 2014. Each programme will last for approximately four
months and is expected to run twice a year. With a capacity for 25
judges per programme, priority for places will be given to those
judges who have been recently appointed to leadership or
management roles. The programme contains modules on topics such
as Understanding your Organisation, Communicating and Working
with other Organisations; People Management; and Managing
Yourself as Leader.
The emphasis of the programme is on practical learning and the
application of key leadership and management skills and attributes.
Full use will be made of online resources and internal expertise (both
judicial and training) to ensure optimum relevance of materials and
cost efficiency.
Other comments This programme is a PROMISING PRACTICE in a state of

April 2014
Page 176 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 17 - iii

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
17 iii
Institution
contact details

1347, Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Phone: + 352 426 230-1
Fax: +352 426 237

EIPA
PROMISING PRACTICE
EIPA has developed training programmes which combine EU law
topics with topics related to the organisation and management of

justice institutions (courts and public prosecutor offices). The
programme is composed of a series of seminars related to the
introduction of Total Quality Management (TQM) into the judiciary.
They are designed for court presidents, chief prosecutors and heads
of administration.
Having as an overall objective the introduction of TQM into the
courts and public prosecutor services, the participants review the
situation in their institutions, including how the work of their
institution is perceived by their client, the press, politicians, etc.,
and whether there is a need for improvements to current procedures
and practices. These programmes are divided into different levels (i)
awareness-raising; (ii) specific TQM (self-assessment tools and how
to use them); (iii) how to plan and implement plans for
improvement; (iv) how to ensure continuous TQM improvements.
Other comments This programme is PROMISING PRACTICE in a state of responsive

development. We are likely to see exponential growth in such
activities in the coming years.
April 2014
Page 177 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 17 - iv

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
April 2014
17 iv
THE NETHERLANDS
PROMISING PRACTICE
The Training and Study Center for the Judiciary (SSR) in the
Netherlands has developed a comprehensive curriculum of
leadership and management development programmes, both for the
Dutch courts and the public prosecution service. This was done upon
the request of, and in close consultation and co-operation with, the
Council for the Judiciary and the Board of Procurators General.
Previously, management and leadership training programmes took
place within the Dutch judiciary and prosecution service on an ad
hoc basis and without any involvement of SSR. Nowadays, there is a
complete set of training programmes in place, for different target
groups at different levels within the Dutch judiciary. An important
added value of the involvement of SSR is that SSR being the
national and only training institution of the judiciary in the
Netherlands can bring in their expert knowledge of judicial
organisation in the Netherlands and their knowledge on how to set
up training curricula for this specific target group. External trainers
are involved for certain specific topics, but the overall design of the
programmes lies with SSR.
The programmes are aimed at board members and high-level
managers from courts and central supporting organisations of the
Dutch court system; heads of court departments (chambers);
heads of teams (both in courts and in prosecutors offices); heads of
operational affairs (within the prosecution service); future or
potential presidents of court and board members; and future heads
of departments.
The training programmes not only focus on hard management and
leadership skills (such as financial management). skills in personal
leadership and thus personal development also form an
important part of the curriculum. Personal leadership is already
firmly embedded in the new initial training programme for judges.
This includes, for instance, peer group consultation and personal
coaching (both by colleague judges and external coaches).
An important notion behind the leadership and management training
programmes is the idea of collectivity and co-operative identity. In
addition to the importance of the training programme for the
individual members, the programmes aim to strengthen judicial
organisation and to develop a common and shared ambition, vision
and set of principles. Collectivity also means that the training
methods used underline the importance of sharing knowledge and
the power of learning from colleagues.
Page 178 of 247

Institution
contact details
Training and Study Centre for the Judiciary (SSR)

Postal address: Postbus 5015
3502 JA Utrecht
Visiting address: Uniceflaan 1
3527 WX Utrecht
Phone: + 31 88 361 3212
E-mail: ssr.international@ssr.nl
Website: http://www.ssr.nl
Other comments This programme is a PROMISING PRACTICE that is currently being

evaluated.
April 2014
Page 179 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 18

Fact Sheet
18
number
Title of practice A Comprehensive Package to Deliver Large-Scale Training on
New Legal Instruments
Category of
practice
Country /
ROMANIA
Institute
Key features
Whenever confronted with large-scale legislative changes or the
introduction of an important new legal tool in any area of law,

training institutions are faced with the need to immediately target a
large number of members of the judiciary in order to provide them
with adequate training in those matters.
This training should follow a careful planning procedure, reflect a
comprehensive training strategy, should be executed as far as
possible under the same training conditions, and, taking into account
the scale of the training, should be as cost-effective as possible.
Romania was faced with the need to retrain the entire judiciary in
four new Codes: the Civil Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the
Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. To this end, the
NIM drafted a unitary, centralised strategy that included 1)
identification of the trainers; 2) the organisation of decentralised
seminars; 3) the continuous updating of training curricula; 4) the
organisation of national conferences at centralised level, with online
broadcasts and video recordings delivered at decentralised seminars
for all judges across Romania.
Simultaneously, training materials were developed and enlarged, as
well as e-Learning modules for the new Codes. In addition, NIM also
organised train the trainers activities.
Institution
contact details
National Institute of Magistracy

050019, Bucharest
Romania
Phone: + 40 021 310 21 10
Fax.: + 40 021 311 02 34
Other comments The above example is a BEST PRACTICE to tackle this kind of
challenge. It is presented irrespective of the area of law to which it

may apply. It is easily transferable and should be adopted whenever
possible.
April 2014
Page 180 of 247


Fact Sheet
18 i
number
Category of
practice
Country /
FRANCE
Institute
Key features

In France, this issue has been tackled through the organisation of
several activities of continuous training that took place in Paris and
at the nine courts of appeal (all over the country) where ENM has
regional training co-ordinators. This plan was complemented by the
design of an e-Learning course on legal reform uploaded on ENMs
intranet and accessible to all judges and clerks of France at the time
of the adoption of the reform. It further included the development of
documentation made available both on paper and on a CD-ROM.
Institution
contact details

75004 Paris
France
Phone: + 33 1 44 41 88 20
Fax: + 33 1 44 41 88 21
Other comments The above example is a BEST PRACTICE to tackle this kind of
challenge. It is presented irrespective of the area of law to which it

may apply. It is easily transferable and should be adopted whenever
possible.
April 2014
Page 181 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 18 ii

Fact Sheet
18 ii
number
Category of
practice
Country /
Institute
Key features

At intervals, the Academy of European Law (ERA) organises
large-scale series of seminars in the Member States aimed at raising
awareness among the national judiciary of a major new piece of
legislation at EU level. This approach was designed to tackle the
training of judges after the adoption of a major EU legislative
change, which may assign a new role to that of the national judge.
This practice is used in an international environment and allows a
rapid and better implementation of the new legislation, intended to
develop a harmonised interpretation of these rules throughout the
European Union.
This practice was implemented by ERA immediately after the
adoption of EC Regulation 1/2003 introducing the new Competition
Law regime across the EU. Even before this new regulation entered
into force in May 2004, ERA started offering basic training for the
judiciary in various Member States. A kind of standardised
programme was drafted and adapted to the specific needs of each
judiciary.
ERA has continued this large-scale training since then, although the
focus has recently shifted from basic training to more advanced or
sectorial training; basic training can and at times is provided through
e-Learning activities.
Institution
contact details
April 2014

Metzer Allee, 4
54295 Trier
Germany
Phone: + 49 651 93737-0
Page 182 of 247

Fax: + 49 651 93737-773
Website: http://www.era.int
Other comments The above example is a GOOD PRACTICE to tackle this kind of
challenge. It is easily transferable and should be adopted whenever

possible.
April 2014
Page 183 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 19

Fact Sheet
19
number
Title of practice Joint Delivery of Training Programmes in Unusual
Partnerships
Category of
practice
Country
PORTUGAL
Type of practice PROMISING PRACTICE
Key features
The annual plan of activities for continuous training in Portugal has
recently included an innovative initiative on the topic of Image and

voice, rhetoric and argumentation, as it was considered that judges
and prosecutors should improve the way they communicate with the
other participants in any judicial activity. While expressing
themselves orally in the court room a public space magistrates
also play an important role in making justice more understandable
to ordinary citizens. In its early stages, this programme works with
teachers of rhetoric and university professors, in an event designed
and implemented under the framework of a partnership agreement
signed between CEJ and the So Carlos National Theatre (the Opera
House in Lisbon). It takes place in the theatres auditorium.
Institution
contact details
Centre for Judicial Studies (CEJ)

Largo do Limoeiro
1149-048 Lisbon
Portugal
Phone: + 351 21 884 56 00
Fax: + 351 21 884 56 04
E-mail: cej@mail.cej.mj.pt
Website: www.cej.mj.pt
Other comments The training programme mentioned above constitutes an interesting

PROMISING PRACTICE which may be easily transferable.
April 2014
Page 184 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 20

Fact Sheet
20
number
Title of practice Joint Delivery of Training Programmes with External Research
Institute
Category of
practice
Country
POLAND
Key features
Although the practice of producing training programmes in areas of
knowledge other than the purely legal field is well-known across the
EU, they are normally organised in partnership with universities or
other institutes specialised in the identified topics. In Poland the
Polish Judicial Academy provided an example of a comprehensive
course on Medical-legal and forensic aspects of the acquisition and
use of biological traces of evidence, applied in continuous training
and comprising four modules of two days seminar sessions (64
hours in total).
The programme consists of activities that involve experienced
prosecutors and forensic specialists, criminology experts from the
Institute of Forensic Research in Cracow. The lecturers are very
experienced in conducting professional training for the judiciary in
the four areas targeted by the modules: forensic biology, forensic
toxicology, genetic science in the criminology science and forensic
medicine and evidence of biological trace in criminal proceedings.
The activity aims to explain and clarify the capacity of new methods
of expertise and to discuss the most problematic practical issues of
proper communication between the expert and their customers.
These issues are discussed with a focus on frequent inquiries and
decisions of the admission of an experts evidence as well as the
interpretation of expert application made by all participants of the
judicial proceeding.
The seminar has been designed to enhance future criminal
proceedings, aiming to provide judges and public prosecutors with a
systematic knowledge of the evidential value of biological traces and
to promote the wider use of these methods of expertise in criminal
proceedings. Its focus is upon communication of difficult topics in
plain language.
National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSIP)
Institution
Krakowskie przedmiescie 62
contact details Ul.
20-076 Lublin, Poland
Phone.: + 48 81 440 87 10
Fax: + 48 81 440 87 11
E-mail: sekretariat@kssip.gov.pl
Website: http://www.kssip.gov.pl
Other comments This particular training programme was considered a BEST
PRACTICE and its transferability, with the necessary adaptations to
each national training environment and its available training
schedule, is recommended.
April 2014
Page 185 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 21

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
21
Court Mentors
BULGARIA
GOOD PRACTICE
The use of workplace mentors and trainers is a standard common

practice in most EU countries. It allows a smooth transition of the
trainee judge or public prosecutor into the judicial system and places
particular emphasis on the practical side of the training, provided on
an individualised basis.
The mentor is normally a highly experienced judge or prosecutor
with good pedagogical skills.
Workplace training and mentoring aims to maintain the level of
effective governance and to create opportunities and conditions for
tacit, experience-based knowledge as well as an appropriate ground
for discussion on performance and effectiveness.
In Bulgaria, this practice is found after the completion of the term
of mandatory training at the training centre.
When the junior judges begin their active professional work, they
still need the expert guidance of a mentor to facilitate their
integration into the judiciary and provide them with practical tools to
handle their day-to-day obligations. NIJ is mandated by law to
follow-up the performance of its graduates during their first two
years within the judiciary. The mentors are trained by NIJ and
periodically meet together to exchange Good Practices as to how to
keep the performance of junior judges and prosecutors in line with
the initial training they have received at NIJ.
This system provides NIJ with feedback about how the initial training
programme, (content, organisation, etc.) meets the requirements of
practice. The mentors are also involved in the evaluation of junior
judges carried out by the Supreme Judicial Council (SCJ).
Institution
EkzarhYossif Str
contact details 14
1301 Sofia
Bulgaria
Phone: + 359 2 9359 100
Fax.: + 359 2 9359 101
Email: nij@nij.bg
Other comments This is a GOOD PRACTICE that can serve as a model for refreshing
to a greater or lesser extent the systems of workplace trainers and
mentors that are in place in most EU Member States for the training
of judges and prosecutors.
April 2014
Page 186 of 247


Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
21 i
Court Mentors
THE NETHERLANDS
GOOD PRACTICE
The use of workplace mentors and trainers is a standard common

practice in most EU countries. It allows a smooth transition of the
trainee judge or public prosecutor into the judicial system and places
particular emphasis on the practical side of the training, provided on
an individualised basis.
The mentor is normally a highly experienced judge or prosecutor
with good pedagogical skills.
In the Netherlands, the initial training programme for judges and
prosecutors is a dual-training programme i.e. trainees work at a
court or prosecutors office and only come to the training centre at
regular intervals for short training courses. This means that an
important part of the actual training takes place at the workplace
itself. This learning by doing is carefully guided by a team of
workplace trainers and mentors who are judges and prosecutors.
During part of their working hours they act as trainers/mentors to a
number of trainees.
The workplace trainers and mentors play a crucial role. They instruct
and train, coach, guide the trainee, and provide feedback on their
performance. It is, therefore, important that they themselves are
well-trained and well-equipped to carry out this role. To this end,
SSR has developed a varied programme of courses and other
activities for these workplace trainers and mentors, both for
beginners and for more experienced workplace trainers and
mentors. It includes coaching and peer-consultation sessions and
master classes. In addition, in 2012 a digital handbook for workplace
trainers and mentors was published. SSR regularly organises a Day
of the Workplace event for these workplace trainers and mentors,
which enables them to share experiences and strengthen their
networks.
Training
and Study Centre for the Judiciary (SSR)
Institution
Postal
address:
5015, 3502 JA Utrecht
contact details Visiting address:Postbus
Uniceflaan 1
3527 WX Utrecht
Phone: + 31 88 361 3212
Other comments This is a GOOD PRACTICE that can serve as a model for refreshing
to a greater or lesser extent the systems of workplace trainers and
mentors that are in place in most EU Member States for the training
of judges and prosecutors.
April 2014
Page 187 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 22

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
22
Institution
contact details

14 EkzarhYossif Str.
BG 1301 Sofia
Bulgaria
Phone: + 359 2 9359 100
Fax.: + 359 2 9359 101
Email: nij@nij.bg
April 2014
Comprehensive Online e-Learning Strategy

Innovative Training Methodology
BULGARIA
BEST PRACTICE
In Bulgaria a judicial and legal environment that is characterised by
constant change, the need for a reliable, up-to-date and easilyaccessible source of information led the Bulgarian Academy to
establish two web-based information tools the Extranet and the
Discussion forum.
Since their creation in 2009, these tools have been widely used.
Both play a supporting role in the training process and have proven
to be cost-effective, because they were built upon an open code
training system.
The Extranet was designed as a communication tool to serve
magistrates when issues arise in the area of European law. After
registering with the system, every magistrate can use the resources
on the Extranet, including practical training materials (court
decisions, assignments and exercises, used during their 9-month
training at the NIJ).
The Discussion Forum was created together with the Distance
Learning Portal and integrates an overall distance learning strategy
on training.
It encourages discussion of topical questions on any subject relating
to future or completed courses. Previous active participation in the
discussion forum during training activities is a criterion for the award
of a Certificate of Completion.
Distance learning courses usually take three to four months to
complete. During this time, participants have online contact with one
another, can access the information from any convenient location
and better manage the time they are willing to dedicate to training,
while exercising overall control over the learning process.
To complement all of the above, the NIJ is planning to purchase ebooks with financial support from the EU.
Page 188 of 247

Other comments The above-described practice has demonstrated a very high level of
efficiency as it has brought a variety of added value to the training,
besides being cost- effective.
It may be considered a BEST PRACTICE to be adopted wherever
possible.
April 2014
Page 189 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 23

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
Institution
contact details
April 2014
23
Blended e-Learning
THE NETHERLANDS
BEST PRACTICE
In the Netherlands a blended e-Learning course consists of a self-
study component and a face-to-face meeting that normally lasts one

day.
The self-study part of the course is accessible to participants via the
Digital Learning Environment of the training institution. This digital
module consists of several lessons (e.g. preparatory assignments,
self-assessment quizzes, short lectures, possibly with self-testing
questions, materials to be read before the face-to-face meeting,
background information either on paper or in an audio/video support
and a forum where questions are asked in order to be answered
during the face-to-face meeting).
This practice has a number of advantages. It ensures that
participants will have the same average level of knowledge on the
topic before the face-to-face meeting. While participants gather the
more theoretical knowledge at their own pace, the trainer can focus
during the face-to-face meeting on the more practical application of
that knowledge through the use of exercises and the stimulation of
discussions on the exchange of experiences. This considerably
enhances the effectiveness of the contacts between trainer and
participants.
Materials for the digital learning environment will remain accessible
for a standard period of two years for the subsequent use of
participants.
The practice enhances the flexibility for participants of the training in
terms of time management, as part of the course is done only when
and where participants are available. Moreover, as various kinds of
learning activities are introduced, these are always suitable for a
range of different learning styles.
Travel time is reduced, as part of the course can be done at home or
at the workplace (but it does not necessarily reduce the time
required for learning).
Postal address: Postbus 5015, 3502 JA Utrecht
3527 WX Utrecht
Phone: + 31 88 361 3212
Page 190 of 247

Other comments Such a BEST PRACTICE may imply considerable expense in its
preparation. Nevertheless, since the majority of materials produced

can be used in following years, the initial cost may be considered a
good investment.
The experience only requires the availability of very basic IT tools
which should be familiar to every European judge or prosecutor. It
offers very specialised and detailed content, something that is less
easy to achieve in a normal face-to-face training activity.
The methodology has been successful so far, as it combines online
learning and face-to-face sessions. The latter allows a more in-depth
approach to some subjects, along with answering questions and,
most importantly, sharing personal experiences.
April 2014
Page 191 of 247


Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
23 i
Institution
contact details
Spanish Judicial School

Carretera de Vallvidrera, 43-45
08017 Barcelona
Spain
Phone: + 34 93 4067300
Fax: + 34 93 406 91 64
Email: escuela.judicial@cgpj.es
Website: http://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj
Blended e-Learning
SPAIN
BEST PRACTICE
In Spain since 2004, the Spanish Judicial School has been
organising continuous training courses on specific areas of European

Law using the blended e-Learning tool, notably with the support of
EU grants. These courses have two different phases: the first phase
is completed through an online campus which lasts for eight weeks.
All participants who successfully complete the first phase are
granted access to the second phase, which consists of a two day
face-to-face meeting at the Judicial School. Each online module
contains a practical presentation of the subject and any related
documents. It is also possible to participate in a forum to debate the
practical or theoretical issues. Finally, participants are required to
complete exercises both individually and within a group.
The objectives of this system are to:
Create learning materials that may be enhanced each year
due to the outcome of the interaction between staff (tutors)
and participants.
Allow each participant to manage at his/her own discretion
the time that is required for learning.
Allow for reorganising and use of these materials, both at the
initial and in continuous training.
Manage large and small groups.
Create public and private dialogues between staff and
participants.
Build a flexible structure capable of adapting itself to different
situations and people.
Other comments Such a BEST PRACTICE may involve considerable expense in its
preparation and for the translation of materials if the course is
April 2014
Page 192 of 247

offered in several languages.
Nevertheless, since the majority of materials produced can be used
in following years, the initial cost may be considered a good
investment.
The experience only requires the availability of very basic IT tools
which should be familiar to every European judge or prosecutor. It
may allow the participation of people from different countries, thus
enriching the training experience. It offers very specialised and
detailed content, something that is less easy to achieve in a normal
face-to-face training activity.
The methodology has been successful so far, as it combines online
learning and face-to-face sessions. The latter allows a more in-depth
approach to some subjects, along with answering questions and,
most importantly, sharing personal experiences.
At the present moment, a large number of judges and prosecutors
from different EU member States are taking part in the Spanish
online programmes on European Law.
April 2014
Page 193 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 24
Fact Sheet
24
number
Title of practice Comprehensive, Multi-Faceted Approach for Training in EU
Law
Category of
practice
Country
BULGARIA
Key features
In Bulgaria, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has implemented
a variety of tools that contribute to the proper application of EU law

by the Bulgarian magistrates. One of the tools is the use of the
Extranet and Discussion Forum in a Distance Learning Portal.
Since 2009, the NIJ has been using an Extranet in addition to its
Distance Learning Portal and Discussion Forum. It plays a supporting
role in the training process, as it meets the need to provide a
reliable source of information that is regularly updated, and can be
easily accessed and consulted.
This professional virtual space was created in 2007-2009, under EUfunded projects. Initially it was designed as a communication tool to
serve the judiciary in matters relating to European law. It has been
further upgraded to serve as a platform for the exchange of
information in the network of EU law co-ordinators in the courts.
Currently, the NIJ is uploading a great variety of training and
information materials for professional use by judges and prosecutors
who are registered as users.
Since 2012 this professional virtual space has also been opened to
trainee judges and prosecutors. All practical training materials (court
decisions, assignments and exercises used during their 9-month
initial training at the NIJ) are uploaded onto the Extranet and
participants can consult them from any location. Additionally, in
2013 under an EU-funded project the NIJ has purchased e-books for
trainee judges in order to assist them in the learning process during
their initial training.
In addition, the NIJ provides updated information in the form of
various electronic resources via its web page. The same line of
activities includes e-publications on EU law addressed to all
magistrates. A specific sub-page within the NIJ website dedicated to
the European Arrest Warrant was developed to cover a variety of
practical issues pertaining to its proper application. The information
is updated on an ongoing basis with current cases studies and other
examples from the European Court of Justice.
Institution
contact details
April 2014

14 EkzarhYossif Str
BG 1301 Sofia
Bulgaria
Page 194 of 247

Phone: + 359 2 9359 100
Fax.: + 359 2 9359 101
Email: nij@nij.bg
Other comments This practice is a PROMISING PRACTICE as it has potential but
requires a significant investment to make available and maintain the

necessary information.
The tools mentioned form part of the Best Practice described in
chapter 7 and fact sheets 37: A comprehensive, multi-faceted
approach for training in EU law and international judicial cooperation.
The other tools that are in place at the NIJ are: 1) EU Law as an
integral part of national law training programmes at the NIJ; 2); and
3) a national network of EU law coordinators.
Since 2011, EU law is not distinguished as a separate discipline, but
is permanently integrated as a module within national law training at
the NIJ, e.g., Application of the Family Code in tune with the acting
EU legislation, Order for payment proceeding legal framework
according to the Civil Procedure Code and the EU Law, etc.
Moreover, the NIJ has established an EU law co-ordinators network.
This includes civil, commercial, administrative and criminal law
judges who act as key reference points in the main Bulgarian courts.
They have access to additional information resources and can be
consulted by their colleagues for specific information or advice on
the application of EU law. The judge co-ordinators also maintain
professional contact with the National Institute.
The application of this practice contributes to maintaining the
general awareness of Bulgarian magistrates on the application of the
various legal instruments of EU law.
April 2014
Page 195 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 25

Fact Sheet
25
number
Title of practice Recording, Broadcasting, Online Podcasting, Recording and
Transcription of Training Activities and their Availability on
the Internet
Category of
practice
Country
ROMANIA
Key features
In Romania, the practice consists of both recorded and live
broadcasts (using an e-streaming system) of training activities and,

at a later stage, making these recordings available on the training
institutes website, where they can be accessed by anyone
interested in the topic.
The above is also complemented by handbooks containing the
transcriptions of the oral presentations made during the training
activities. These are also available on the training institutes website
(e-handbooks) for free downloading.
This system of distance learning was put into practice in order to
reach as many judges and prosecutors as possible with a minimum
of cost while maintaining the best possible quality and uniformity of
training.
Institution
contact details
National Institute of Magistracy

050019, Bucharest
Romania
Phone: + 40 021 310 21 10
Fax.: + 40 021 311 02 34
Other comments This practice is linked to the practices presented under

Comprehensive package to deliver large scale training on new
legislative practice (FS 18).
It is a BEST PRACTICE, easily transferable and can be put into
practice if resources are available.
April 2014
Page 196 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 26

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
26
Institution
contact details
Centre for Judiciary Studies (CEJ)

Largo do Limoeiro
1149-048 Lisbon
Portugal
Phone: + 351 21 884 56 00
Fax: + 351 21 884 56 04

PORTUGAL
GOOD PRACTICE
In Portugal in order to avoid unnecessary travel costs for interested
participants who work a long way from the training venue, and also
to allow a larger number of people to benefit from them, a
considerable number of training activities included in the annual
ongoing training programme are now delivered via videoconferencing.
This tool is mainly used when training topics relate to the study and
implementation of new legal instruments, as these normally attract a
large number of participants.
If adequate technology is available (the reception points require
adequate technical capacity, though this is not usually a problem as
training normally takes place at the regional courts), the tool may
also allow interaction with the different reception points and the
event venue.
Linked for this purpose, the tool is also often combined with a
special e-mail box, to which participants may send questions and
remarks that, in a large number of cases, have real-time feedback.
Other comments A GOOD PRACTICE, easily transferable, of the use of distance

learning tools applied to continuous training.
April 2014
Page 197 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 27

Fact Sheet
27
number
Title of practice Real Case Study, Developed in Real Time, through the Use
of Video-conferencing
Category of
practice
Country
SPAIN
Key features
In Spain, this live teaching method may be considered a hybrid
system that benefits from the use of a guest teacher or trainer (in
this case, the Judge at the Court) during the discussion of a case
study directed by the teacher or trainer at the training centre.
The specificity relates to the fact that the case study is nothing more
than a real case being developed in real time at a local court.
Trainees at the training centre are given access to the court hearing
via video-conferencing between the school and the Court. A
significant amount of preparation takes place before the hearing
occurs.
At the end of the court session, a general discussion is held between
trainees, the guest teacher and the schools trainer, also via videoconference, focusing on the substantive and procedural questions
raised by the case.
Institution
contact details

08017 Barcelona
Spain
Phone: + 34 93 4067300
Fax: +34 93 406 91 64
Others
comments
Although it is used only in the initial training phase and targets only
a small group, this possibility may be considered as a BEST
PRACTICE. It requires careful planning and preparation, not only in
the choice of case but also on the key points to be discussed after
the hearing, taking into account the pedagogical objectives that
were set. Training institutions may like to try this training
methodology if the required technical resources are available and if
the live transmission of a court hearing is allowed by their own
procedural rules.
April 2014
Page 198 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 28

Fact Sheet
28
number
Title of practice Recruitment of Trainers and Evaluation of Trainers
Performance
Category of
practice
Country
ROMANIA
Key features
In Romania, training staff are recruited through an open
competition procedure overseen by a commission of three members

(including one of the NIM Directors and a NIM trainer specialised in
educational sciences) who are appointed by the Scientific Council of
the School.
In stage one the commission evaluates the applications and
shortlists suitable candidates. Competences cover seniority,
qualifications, professional experience in the field required, scientific
publications etc.
In stage two there is a personal interview where the commission
assesses communication skills and ability to interact with adults, indepth specialised knowledge and reasoning abilities, ability to
undertake research through the use of multiple sources and
linguistic abilities etc.
After this interview, the commission grades each candidate using a
scale from 1 to 10 and only the candidates achieving the minimum
grade of 8 qualify for the following stage.
In the third stage, candidates perform in a demonstration seminar
before a judicial group or a demonstration seminar within the
continuous training programme. Their performance is assessed
according to criteria such as demonstrated practical abilities and
attitudes, logical sequencing of the presentation, adaptability to
various training methods in relation to the training objectives and
the group profile, compliance with the principles of adult training,
logic and clarity in the specialised field, use of appropriate learning
resources, time management etc.
Candidates applying for the position of internship co-ordinators are
evaluated for a trial period of one month.
At the end of this procedure the commission reclassifies the
candidates using the same scale from 1 to 10. Those achieving a
grade of 8 or higher are recommended for recruitment to the
Scientific Council.
This Council then selects the candidates to be submitted for approval
to the High Council of Magistracy. However, candidates applying for
the position of full-time trainer can only be appointed after an
additional interview with the members of the Scientific Council.
After their appointment, trainers are annually assessed on the basis
April 2014
Page 199 of 247

of specific methodologies adapted for each type of training. The
annual assessment of trainers and co-ordinators of internships is
based on the procedures and criteria set up by the Statute of the
NIM training staff, according to four assessment sources: the selfevaluation filled in by the trainer/co-ordinator of internships, an
assessment made by the person responsible for the particular field
of study, the evaluation forms filled in by the participants in the
training events and the assessment made by the NIMs specialist in
educational sciences.
Each individual overall annual evaluation is submitted for approval to
the Scientific Council. If the results of this evaluation process bring
changes to the network of the NIMs training staff, they are
submitted to the High Council of Magistracy for approval.
NIM keeps all evaluation details on a database as, after each
seminar, NIMs staff input all the information gathered from
comments made by participants in the evaluation forms.
This database offers a centralised overview of the quality of the
training provided by NIM, an individual assessment of each trainer
(global, per year or per seminar) and the topics that each one of
them has presented.
Institution
contact details

050019 Bucharest
Romania
Phone: + 40 021 310 21 10
Fax.: + 40 021 311 02 34
Other comments This GOOD PRACTICE provides a clear, objective and predictable
selection and evaluation procedure for trainers and provides an

objective answer to questions such as: how one can identify and
recruit the best people in the system?, how can one evaluate the
quality of a potential trainer?, what are the criteria one should
observe when selecting a new trainer? and what should the
selection procedure consist of? It is presented here as a source of
inspiration for other national training institutions.
April 2014
Page 200 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 29

Fact Sheet
29
number
Title of practice Organisation of Decentralised Training to Reflect Local
Training Needs and Issues
Category of
practice
Country
BULGARIA
Key features
With this practice, national training centres and judicial academies
aim to provide a solution to local training needs and issues and/or to

make face-to-face training more accessible to judges and
prosecutors working in regions that are some distance from the
central training body (thus reducing the logistical costs while
targeting a potentially higher number of participants).
The normal approach is to have these decentralised activities
included in the annual training plan of the national training centre as
part of a global national strategy. However, the existence is
recognised of locally organised independent training at the discretion
of local services or courts.
Bulgaria has presented an interesting mixed example of both
systems. Every year, the Academy provides the opportunity for the
district courts, administrative courts and district prosecution offices
to apply for the Academys pre-defined grants to facilitate the
organisation of regional training on specific topics of general or local
interest. If approved, this budget is regionally managed and the
expenditure incurred is subsequently reviewed and approved by the
Academy.
Applicants submit a draft budget within the pre-set deadline. They
also either choose a topic from the Institutes overall curriculum or
suggest a new one, if there is a particular regional training need. If
the proposal is accepted and if the Academy has already developed
the subject in one of its training activities, it makes its own training
materials available. If this is not the case, the Academy provides
assistance in identifying or recommending potential trainers and
establishing the necessary contact between the latter and the
applicant. The logistics and all other details relevant to the
organisation of the venue are the responsibility of the applicant.
This practice contributes to maintaining the balance between
training demand and supply, as every Bulgarian magistrate has the
right to attend three training courses of their own choice per year
and the Academy in Sofia cannot cope with such a large number of
potential participants on its premises.
Institution
contact details
April 2014

14 EkzarhYossif Str
BG 1301 Sofia
Page 201 of 247

Bulgaria
Phone: + 359 2 9359 100
Fax.: + 359 2 9359 101
Email: nij@nij.bg
Other comments The organisation of these decentralised training activities is a wellknown standard GOOD PRACTICE that is applied in most EU
training institutions.
The Bulgarian example described above, although not transferable in
itself, may be applied as an idea for a hypothetical improvement in
existing schemes in countries that have an identical legal framework
that allows local courts or prosecution services to undertake training
activities on behalf of or under the supervision of the national
training centres.
April 2014
Page 202 of 247


Fact Sheet
29 i
number
Category of
practice
Country
ROMANIA
Key features

In Romania, decentralised seminars formed an important part of
the training package to deliver large-scale training on new legal
instruments. The decentralised seminars were organised and directly
co-ordinated by the NIM, at the level of the courts of appeal and the
prosecutors offices. (See also fact sheet 18.)
Institution
contact details

050019, Bucharest
Romania
Phone: + 40 021 310 21 10
Fax.: + 40 021 311 02 34
April 2014
Page 203 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 29 - ii

Fact Sheet
29 ii
number
Category of
practice
Country
FRANCE
Key features

In France, one of the main focuses of the national
training programme is the organisation of training courses on key
reforms in the context of decentralised continuous training, i.e. in
the nine courts of appeal where the National School for the
Judiciary (ENM) and regional training coordinators carry out their
duties. (See also fact sheet 18.)
Institution
contact details

75004 Paris
France
Phone: + 33 1 44 41 88 20
Fax: + 33 1 44 41 88 21
April 2014
Page 204 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 30

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
30
Institution
contact details
Judicial College
London SW1H 9LJ
United Kingdom
April 2014
Learning in Large Teams The Snowball Methodology

ENGLAND and WALES
BEST PRACTICE
This practice becomes increasingly used in England and Wales

training programmes that involve larger groups. The form of the
exercise and time taken will depend on the number of people
involved.
The methodology was designed to enable large groups to distil
complex thinking or to collaborate to identify a common set of
options or ideas. It has been adopted as a means of consolidating
learning or to encourage collaboration in the development of new
ideas, thus encouraging creativity and shared learning.
The essential criteria are that the topics and the outcomes of the
exercise need to be relevant to the groups. This way they can
appreciate their role in making the exercise a success. The required
time will depend on the size of the group and the complexity of the
issues.
As an example, for a group of 24 people, one would start with four
groups of six participants. The four groups would discuss the topic
and identify their thoughts on the subject.
After 20-40 minutes (depending on the complexity of the subject),
the four groups of six join together to form two groups of 12 and
they collaborate for 15-30 minutes to share their ideas and come up
with a collective view.
The final stage sees the two groups of 12 joining together for up to
20 minutes to identify the common themes and/or a collective set of
ideas. The final set of ideas is then reviewed in plenary.
All stages of the exercise take place in one large room. Initially
groups sit around tables, or gather around flip charts. As the groups
expand, the participants find their own ways of gathering together
and collecting their ideas. They are facilitated by one or two people
who act as timekeepers and manage the various stages of the
exercise.
A good facilitator will encourage the group to work collaboratively
and will direct the three or four stages of the exercise and keep
time. The participants will self-facilitate within their groups.
Page 205 of 247

Phone: + 44 203 334 0700
Fax: + 44 203 334 5485
Other comments The exercise is also very cost-effective, as the participants in the
group do the work themselves, with the aid of one or two

facilitators. The logistical requirements are small a room large
enough for the groups to work together and materials for them to
capture their ideas (flip charts, white boards, paper and pens).
This methodology is easily transferable, may be applied to
continuous or initial training alike and it may be considered a BEST
PRACTICE.
April 2014
Page 206 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 31

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
31
Small Teams Decision Writing
THE NETHERLANDS
PROMISING PRACTICE
This practice used in the Netherlands applies to the initial training

phase and targets the writing of final decisions in the civil area.
Teams are formed consisting of a small number of participants, with
a similar level of knowledge and experience. After a general
theoretical two-day-course on writing civil verdicts, each team has
five sessions at regional or local level, held every two weeks. In
these sessions, they work together with a trainer on practical
assignments based on real cases. This encourages a collective
learning experience on how to draft a good, analytically sound and
well-motivated verdict.
The trainees workplace mentor is also involved in the learning team
sessions.

3502 JA Utrecht
3527 WX Utrecht
Phone: + 31 88 361 3212
Other comments This PROMISING PRACTICE is of particular interest for countries
with systems involving an initial training that relies exclusively on
mentors in the courts, or that are organised on a dual basis in the
initial training phase. This means that the trainee is placed at the
court but simultaneously attends several common training sessions
at the central or regional training centre.
In this case, the above methodology provides a good connection
between education/training at the workplace and at the training
centre, due to the fact that the workplace mentors and course
trainers work together in the learning teams.
However, the methodology of working in small learning teams with a
safe learning environment with a focus on learning from each other
rather than from a trainer can be adopted in any system of initial
training, as well as in continuous training activities.
The adoption of such procedures required the setting-up of a project
group consisting of SSR staff (a seconded civil law judge, a course
manager and an educational scientist) and a court clerk.
Institution
contact details
April 2014
Page 207 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 32

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
32
ESTONIA
GOOD PRACTICE
This training methodology addresses the need for training on judicial

opinion writing with individual feedback to the participants, in order
to facilitate their actual learning of the skill.
In Estonia, when applied to continuous training, the methodology
comprises two stages:
Firstly, an introductory seminar is held for a relatively small group of
participants, led by an experienced judge and focusing on the
techniques and legal requirements of writing final judicial decisions.
Secondly, in the feedback phase, each participant is invited to send
one reasoned final judgment to two readers other judges or
academics with high-level reasoning skills for their appreciation.
This appreciation is double-blind the readers do not know whose
opinion they are reading and the author does not know who the
readers were when they receive the feedback.
The readers feedback focuses on the legal reasoning and
argumentation found in the judgment, not on whether the reader
agrees with the final outcome or not.
Supreme
Court of Estonia
Institution
17
Lossi
St,
50093
contact details Tartu
Estonia
Phone: + 372 7 309 002
Fax: + 372 7 309 003
Other comments The double-blind evaluation scheme for written documents has only
been used by training institutions for preliminary or final exams.
During initial training, trainers (at the judicial academies) and
mentors (at courts), who provide the feedback on the written
simulations of legal opinions or final decisions issued by the trainees,
are usually aware of who has written them. It may also be argued
that such a system allows a better interaction between trainee and
trainer while facilitating the latters task (this task can only be
performed properly if the qualities and deficiencies of the person
requiring training are known in advance).
However, the above GOOD PRACTICE may be an interesting
experiment in the area of continuous training.
April 2014
Page 208 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 33

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
April 2014
33
Small Teams The Business of Judging
ENGLAND and WALES
BEST PRACTICE
The Business of Judging is a two-day residential seminar open to

judges in England and Wales (and in some Scottish tribunal
jurisdictions) from all jurisdictions and forms part of the Judicial
Colleges programme of continuing education. It is virtually
paperless, with practically nothing to read or prepare. It occupies a
total of 13 training hours and judges spend only 2.5 of those in
plenary sessions listening to others speak. For the rest of the time
they work in small groups of six judges supervised by an
experienced course tutor. This means that the seminar involves 20%
listening and 80% doing.
The seminar comprises four parts.
Part one is a module on Judicial Conduct and Ethics. In small
groups, participants are invited to consider and discuss a number of
in court and out of court practical scenarios and how they would
deal with them. The scenarios, seven in all, are presented on a DVD,
filmed using professional actors.
Part two is entitled Assessing Credibility, making a decision and
giving an oral judgment. The assessment of credibility is surely one
of the most important judicial skills and is required in most cases,
whatever or wherever the jurisdiction. In small groups, the judges
watch a DVD showing the conflicting evidence of the complainant
and the defendant in an employment case based on sexual
harassment. It is an invented case acted out by professional actors
and advocates. It shows the kind of factual dispute that could arise
in any jurisdiction the employment jurisdiction is merely the
vehicle and the law is simple. The judges are asked to complete
questionnaires indicating the factors that affected their assessment
of the witnesses credibility.
Each judge then gives a short oral judgment lasting about five
minutes. This judgment is delivered in the small groups and there is
some time for preparation. Each judgment is filmed on micro-disc
and all or part of the film is played back within the group. Each
judge then receives feedback from the course tutor and the other
members of the group on his or her performance and there is a
discussion of the learning points that arise.
Part three is entitled Managing Judicial Life and deals with judicial
stress and how to cope with it. It includes a video presentation made
by an experienced criminal law judge who suffered a nervous
breakdown and fully recovered from it.
Page 209 of 247

Part four is called Dealing with Unexpected and High Conflict
Situations in Court. In a small group, each judge is asked to
conduct a live hearing lasting a few minutes. They will have received
a brief summary of the case in advance but do not know what is
about to happen. In an attempt to simulate the court or tribunal
setting the case is acted out by a professional advocate and a
professional actor. The judges task is to assess, manage and solve
the problems that unfold before him or her.
The hearing is filmed and all or part of the film is replayed within the
group. The judges receive feedback on their performance from the
course tutor and the members of the group. There are six scenarios
and each member of the group presides as the judge in a different
scenario.
Institution
contact details
Judicial College
London SW1H 9LJ
United Kingdom
Phone: + 44 203 334 0700
Fax: + 44 203 334 5485
Other comments This practice refers only to continuous training, targets a small
group of people and is resource-intensive in terms of the number of

trainers, advocates and actors required and therefore fairly
expensive to deliver. It also may take a long time to prepare,
including the filming.
Although for the above reasons a full transferability recommendation
may not be appropriate, it is considered to be a BEST PRACTICE
adequate to improve judicial performance, namely to develop the
generic judicial skills of judges by enabling them to practice the
skills and learn from each other.
This type of seminar is also an excellent vehicle for training
scenarios involving unexpected or unusual situations.
April 2014
Page 210 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 34

Fact Sheet
34
number
Title of practice The Judge in Society: Deontology, Ethics and Relations with
the Media
Category of
practice
Country
SPAIN
Key features
This practice applies in Spain to initial training and the methodology
used calls for the co-operation and active participation of each

participant.
It is divided into two parts.
The first part focuses on the analysis of deontology and judicial
ethics. A set of short stories is used giving descriptions of different
behaviours hypothetically adopted by judges and prosecutors when
facing several typical situations of daily life.
Students are asked to identify the deontological principle involved in
the behaviour and to deduce its principal characteristics. The activity
is performed by small groups of 6-8 participants supervised by a
professor of the school. Each activity concludes with an exposition of
conclusions and broad debate.
The second part deals with the judge in society and focuses on
his/her relationship with the media. Direct presentations with
discussions are used in a round table format with acting judges,
press officers at the courts and journalists experienced in justice
matters. It focuses on issues such as the exercise of freedom of
information and the right of free expression. The application of
ethical codes at national and European level is analysed, along with
the national and European case law (ECJ and ECHR) issued in this
area.
In addition, a Moodle platform is used to provide discussion forums
involving speakers and students.
Institution
contact details

08017 Barcelona
Spain
Phone: + 34 93 4067300
Fax: + 34 93 406 91 64
Other comments The evaluation made by the Spanish School of this GOOD
PRACTICE is very positive, emphasising its interactive component.
With regard to the first part of the activity, the drafts of the
April 2014
Page 211 of 247

suggested stories are of great importance. These should be concise
and short but sufficiently complex in relation to the problems raised,
in order to stimulate discussion. The methodology can also be used
for developing arguing skills whenever participants are asked to take
opposite stances on the behaviour described.
In the second part, the training activity tackles the problems that
arise between judges and prosecutors and the media. For example,
it aims to raise awareness of the role of the journalist and of how to
provide information related to judicial matters in respect of their
legal obligations.
April 2014
Page 212 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 35

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
35
Institution
contact details
Supreme Court of Estonia

17 Lossi St, 50093
Tartu
Estonia
Phone: + 372 7 309 002
Fax: + 372 7 309 003
Self-reflection in Communication Skills

ESTONIA
BEST PRACTICE
This training methodology is used in Estonia for training on

communication and hearing management skills.
The training format consists of three stages: an introductory
seminar, a one-on-one feedback session and a follow-up seminar.
The number of participants is quite low, usually five. The trainer
group consists of a communications specialist and a specialist in
procedural law.
At the introductory seminar, participants discuss effective
communication and what hearing management strategies they use.
Then each participant is visited by the trainers, who observe and
videotape a court hearing conducted by the participant and then
give immediate feedback on his/her performance.
Before the follow-up seminar, video recordings are made available to
the rest of the training group to give them an opportunity to learn
from their fellow judges best practices.
At the follow-up seminar, participants view and discuss the most
significant practices and formulate conclusions and
recommendations for their own further development.
Other comments This individualised training approach consists of a BEST PRACTICE
which is easily transferable in itself, although the scheme may

collide with national legal rules in relation to the filming of live court
hearings and the rights of the participants in the process.
This methodology was adopted to respond to the need for
individualised training on effective hearing management and
professional communications skills, as one may expect judges and
prosecutors to be very interested in how their style of conducting
official business comes across to others in the courtroom. The
April 2014
Page 213 of 247

gathering of other forms of feedback on such matters would
certainly be highly inappropriate.
Such training is relevant to the needs of each participating judge,
enabling a close interaction between trainers and magistrates. In
addition, this training methodology offers an indispensable relative
discreetness that is much appreciated. It does not only allow for
individual differences to be taken into account and individual
problems to be addressed, but it also provides a great deal of good
information for a training needs assessment process.
April 2014
Page 214 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 36

Fact Sheet
36
number
Title of practice Media Communication Interactive and Multi-layer Media
Training
Category of
practice
Country
GERMANY
Key features
In Germany, interactive media training sessions are organised
which last four-to-five days. Usually, there are at least two media
trainers present (often journalists) and the attendees are allocated
to rotating thematic working groups of a maximum of 8 to 12
people (meaning that at the end of the course, everyone will have
actively dealt with each topic).
Videotaping and individual feedback highlight strong points as well
as errors or deficiencies. Typical interactive working group topics are
Giving a TV or radio interview, Making a TV statement, Making a
press statement, Portraying a new court leader, Informing the
public while safeguarding data protection rights, Learning to cope
with aggressive counterparts, etc.
Institution
contact details

Berliner Allee 7,
54295 Trier, Germany
Phone: + 49 65 1 93 61 119
Fax: + 49 65 1 30 02 10
Brandenburg)
Am Schloss 1,
D-16818 Wustrau, Germany
Phone: + 49 33 92 5 8 97 333,
Fax: + 49 33 92 5 8 97 202
Other comments For media training, the concept of learning by doing is increasingly
becoming more relevant than most of the other soft skills. Often,
judges and prosecutors are not the most natural communicators and
an awkward public performance in this domain is regrettably rather
often seen in practice. In addition, judges and prosecutors often deal
with very sensitive and delicate matters. Any form of data protection
needs to be reconciled with the legitimate information needs of the
April 2014
Page 215 of 247

general public. Practice-oriented and multi-layer media training
focusing on typical patterns and enriched with objective feedback
enables the attendees to get some kind of routine and to feel more
confident in front of the camera or at a press conference.
This GOOD PRACTICE, established to tackle certain problems, has
a good effectiveness rate but is rather expensive because of the
logistical resources it involves. It can target only a small group of
participants at one time and is especially aimed at magistrates who
perform the role of spokesperson for courts and prosecution offices.
April 2014
Page 216 of 247

Fact Sheet UP 2
Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Key features
UP 249
Institution
contact details
Centre for Judicial Studies (CEJ)

Largo do Limoeiro
1149-048 Lisbon
Portugal
Phone: + 351 21 884 56 00
Fax: + 351 21 884 56 04
Access to EU Law via Electronic Means

Implementation of Training Tools to Favour the Correct
Application of EU Law and International Judicial Co-operation
PORTUGAL
In Portugal the judicial training centre directly links training
activities to providing access to EU law via electronic means.

Along with the documentation delivered to participants in any
continuous training action on legal issues, the training centre also
puts together a special folder gathering all EU legal instruments that
are in any way connected with that same topic.
The folder is prepared by an EU law trainer. Along with all other
training materials on this activity, it is available online in an open
area of the training centres website.
Other comments This practice forms part of the overall practice of A Comprehensive,
Multi-Faceted Approach for Training in EU Law and International

Judicial Co-operation.
49
'UP refers to Unclassified Practice. In the course of the study, a number of practices were brought to
the experts' attention which were of interest, but which in the view of the experts did not warrant a special
April 2014
Page 217 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 37

Fact Sheet
37
number
Title of practice Comprehensive, MultiFaceted Approach for Training in EU
Law and International Judicial Co-operation (Eurinfra model)
Category of
practice
Country
THE NETHERLANDS
Key features
The Eurinfra project in the Netherlands was introduced in 2002. It
consisted of three sub-projects, with the following objectives:

Improving the accessibility of European law information
resources using web technology;
Improving knowledge of European law amongst the Dutch
judiciary;
Setting up and maintaining a network of court co-ordinators
for European law (hereinafter GCE).
The realisation of these objectives is interdependent: improved
access to legal resources can be better utilised if the judiciary has a
broader and more in-depth knowledge of European law. At the same
time, an organisational basis is necessary. The network of court coordinators for European law is designed to put the knowledge of
European law within the judiciary to better use by improving cooperation between the members of the judiciary.
To achieve this, court co-ordinators have been given the task of
improving the information and internal co-ordination within their own
courts, and maintaining contacts with other courts on the subject of
European law.
The Eurinfra project was completed in December 2004, but this does
not mean that the activities undertaken within the framework of this
project were also terminated as of that date. On the contrary, the
three pillars of the project have achieved a permanent status and will
be reinforced with new activities.
Source:
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/Publications/Documents/Eurinfra_
EN_FR.pdf
Currently, the GCE network is reconsidering its tasks and the way the
network as a whole and the individual GCEs can operate best in order
to help the Dutch judiciary understand and apply EU law and
instruments and assist with ongoing digitalisation and the growth of
social media as well as with the expansion of European law within
the national jurisdictions.
The Eurinfra project has proven to be a transferable practice, both as
April 2014
Page 218 of 247

a whole the three-component model and in its parts.
Available direct http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/4
internet link
53198/IPOL-JURI_ET(2011)453198_EN.pdf
Institution
contact details

3502 JA Utrecht
3527 WX Utrecht
Phone: + 31 88 361 3212
Other comments The BEST PRACTICE described here is similar to others that can
already be found in other EU countries Bulgaria, Romania

(EUROQUOD fact sheet UP 3 and Italy (GAIUS fact sheet 38) for
example using the same philosophy and purpose. The Dutch
experience is highlighted here because it was the first to be
implemented.
Although transferable, and recommended, at the moment of its
implementation, it will be important to define its tasks properly with
respect to other existing contact points or networks e.g. the
European Judicial Network (in criminal matters) and the European
Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters.
April 2014
Page 219 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 38

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
38
Institution
contact details

Via Tronto n 2
00198 Rome
Italy
Phone: + 39 685271204
Fax: + 39 685271270
Email: segreteria@scuolamagistratura.it
Website: http://www.scuolamagistratura.it
GAIUS
ITALY
BEST PRACTICE
Within the wider context of decentralised training, this system relies

in Italy on a network of local trainers who specialise in several areas
of European law and who are also competent to organise training
activities in several judicial districts and satisfy those training needs.
Their task also includes the implementation of databases and data
collection and indexes of case law of the ECJ and the ECHR. This
network is integrated in the decentralised training structures that
are now part of the Italian School for the Judiciary.
The full European GAIUS project of the Italian CSM aims to achieve
three different types of results. The first is to increase the number of
centralised and decentralised courses on European law; the second
is to provide specific training for judges who exercise jurisdiction in
areas connected with European law; and the third involves the
creation (as part of the COSMAG website) of a web page (electronic
Gaius) capable of providing quick and easy access to past and
ongoing training courses, teaching materials and national and
European legislation.
Other comments This BEST PRACTICE is similar to others that can already be found
in other EU countries Bulgaria, Romania (EUROQUOD) and The

Netherlands (EURINFRA) are good examples using the same
philosophy and with an identical purpose.
Although transferable, and recommended, the operability of this
practice may collide with particularities linked to the specific judicial
organisation of a given Member State, which is an area out of the
range of the competences of the national training academies.
Besides, at the moment of its implementation, it will be important to
define its tasks properly with respect to those of other existing
contact points or networks e.g. the European Judicial Network (in
criminal matters) and the European Judicial Network in Civil and
Commercial Matters.
April 2014
Page 220 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 39

Fact Sheet
39
number
Title of practice Combining Training on EU Law and International Cooperation with Legal Language Training
Category of
practice
Country
SPAIN
Key features
The combination in Spain of training on EU-law and international co-
operation was introduced by the Spanish Judicial School several

years ago.
Currently, the School is undertaking the project Driving judicial
performance in the European area of justice: mutual assistance in
civil and criminal matters that produces results, with EU financial
support.
This course comprises three phases:
A theoretical phase, led by a judge and a linguist that
includes training in language terminology and discourse
(French and English), training on the legal systems of France
and England and on EU law (including substantive and
procedural law, judicial co-operation instruments and the
corresponding jurisprudence of the ECJ). Practical and
theoretical training is combined as participants carry out
practical exercises, such as presenting arguments on
proceedings or simulations of hearings based on the French
and British systems.
A one-week internship in a court in France or England in
order to acquire first-hand knowledge of the functioning of
the local institutions and of the legal systems which have
been studied in the previous stage. Judges from the host
countries act as tutors to the participants in this practical
phase.
A linguistic immersion phase aimed at reinforcing and
consolidating the knowledge acquired in the previous phases.
As a follow-up, a secured internet forum is available to course
participants, in order to allow them to keep in contact with each
other and continue to exchange their experiences.
This course forms part of the national continuous training
programme, although participants from the various EU member
States are admitted.
This model inspired the EJTNs Linguistic Project Series, aimed at
improving the participants linguistics skills (oral and written),
mastering specialised vocabulary related to judicial co-operation in
criminal and civil matters (in order to facilitate direct contacts and
communication between judicial authorities and enhance mutual
April 2014
Page 221 of 247

trust).
By developing the linguistic skills of legal practitioners within the
target groups, the project familiarises the participants with the
various legal instruments in the field of judicial co-operation in
criminal matters in Europe as well as with the online tools available
on the web.
The EJTN seminars consist of a one-week face-to-face course taking
place in an international environment addressed either at the
criminal area or at the civil area. The course combines theoretical
and practical sessions, directed in partnership by a legal and a
linguistic expert, focusing on selected legal issues and the four basic
language skills: reading, writing, speaking, and listening, in terms of
legal terminology.
Available direct http://www.ejtn.eu/en/Resources/EJTN-recommended-trainingintercet link

curricula/
Institution
contact details

08017 Barcelona
Spain
Phone: + 34 93 4067300
Fax: + 34 93 406 91 64
European Judicial Training Network (EJTN)
Rue du Commerce 123
1000 Brussels
Belgium
Phone: + 32 2 280 22 42
Fax: + 32 2 280 22 36
Email: ejtn@ejtn.eu
Website: http://www.ejtn.eu
Other comments This GOOD PRACTICE is currently being applied in continuous
training but is perfectly suitable for initial training.

The Spanish scheme involves a higher financial cost due to the
internship mechanism foreseen in the module, but it may still be
suitable and affordable if enhanced co-operation or a better
understanding of the legal system of another country is required.
Furthermore, as a result of the previously-mentioned EJTN project,
two handbooks containing the majority of the exercises offered in
the seminars are available, thus making the transferability of the
practice considerably easier. This tool constitutes a common EU
asset and is available to every single EJTN member.
April 2014
Page 222 of 247


Fact Sheet
39 i
number
Title of practice Judges and Prosecutors from Neighbouring
Countries/Regions are Trained Together in EU Law (and
Language), Reflecting the Existing Operational Co-operation
Category of
practice
Country
HUNGARY (POLAND, CZECH REPUBLIC, SLOVAKIA)
Key features
The judicial training institutions of Visegrad group countries (V4)
have established a firm regional co-operation, consisting of

organising training activities on judicial co-operation in Europe. The
institutions participating in the co-operation are: the National School
of Judiciary and Public Prosecution of Poland; the Judicial Academy
of the Czech Republic; the Judicial Academy of the Slovak Republic;
the Judicial Academy of the Republic of Hungary appointed within
the National Office for the Judiciary in Hungary and the Office of the
General Prosecutor of the Republic of Hungary.
These institutions believe that historical reasons, their geographical
closeness, and their similar experiences with EU integration mean
they share the same needs in the training of judges and prosecutors
in the area of European judicial co-operation. In the last three years,
various training events have been organised.
One example is the project developed by the judicial training
institutions of three of the Visegrad countries (Czech Republic,
Hungary, and Poland) and Croatia, called Language Training for
Judges and Prosecutors. The project is coordinated by the
Hungarian Ministry of Public Administration and Justice and is
financially supported by the European Commission.
The project aims at improving the legal, professional and Englishlanguage knowledge and skills of the participating criminal judges
and prosecutors. The language training focuses on the legal
terminology of general European Union law and Union legal acts, and
especially on the legal terminology used in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The practice is applied in continuous
training.
Another example is a series of training seminars on the following
topics: Judicial co-operation in criminal matters in EU, specifically
within V4 Group, Evidences in criminal proceedings. Progress in
Forensic Science. Role and importance of examination of Crime
Science, Remedies for breach of EU law, Exchanging criminal
records and taking into account of convictions in the EU,
"Acquisition and admissibility of foreign evidence in the EU: from
mutual assistance to mutual recognition", "Extradition and
surrender: EAW", Professional ethics of the judge and prosecutor,
Fight against corruption, and Judicial co-operation in criminal
matters European and regional.
April 2014
Page 223 of 247

At each event, every partner can appoint 10 participants, judges or
prosecutors. The trainers are invited from the countries of origin of
the co-operations partnership. The training events (apart from the
travel costs) are financed by the hosting institutions. The working
languages are English and the language of the hosting institution.
Besides these training events, the project has resulted in the
creation of a pool of experts in the region in this area of law.
Moreover, it has proven to be a perfect tool to create mutual
understanding among judges and prosecutors from the region,
tightening their mutual relations and networks.
Institution
contact details
National Office for the Judiciary (Hungarian Academy of Justice)

Postal address: 1363 Pf.: 24 Budapest, Visiting address: Szalay u.
16
1055 Budapest
Hungary
Phone: + 36 1 354-4100
Fax: + 36 1 312-4453
Email: obh@obh.birosag.hu
Website: http://www.birosag.hu/obh
Other comments This practice is applied for training events for continuous training. It
is transferable, especially when structures for regional co-operation
already exist.
April 2014
Page 224 of 247

Fact Sheet UP 3
Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Key features
Institution
contact details
UP 350
Continual Networking (Real and Virtual)
ROMANIA
Following the pattern established by the Dutch and Italian networks,

in 2012 the National Institute of Magistracy (NIM) in Romania
created EuRoQuod the Romanian national network of court coordinators in the field of European Union law. The goal was to
improve knowledge of European law within the Romanian judiciary
and acknowledge the accessibility of European law information
resources using web technology. EuRoQuod is now a functional
network composed of 43 court co-ordinators, most of them very
active, and with a very useful website containing three sections: one
dedicated to the network, another for preliminary requests and a
section dedicated to specific areas that raise questions in the courts
case law. Within its first year of operation, the NIM has already
organised four conferences dedicated to the training of EuRoQuod
members. The fourth EuRoQuod conference was broadcast online in
English and was thus accessible to Dutch and Italian magistrates,
creating a connection between the three networks. Moreover, the
trainers were members of the Eurinfra, Gaius and EuRoQuod
networks. The other members that followed the discussion online
had an opportunity to use an online chatroom in order to participate
actively in the debates and they could connect with conference
participants via Skype.
050019, Bucharest
Romania
Phone: + 40 021 310 21 10
Fax.: + 40 021 311 02 34
Other comments This practice forms part of the overall practice of A Comprehensive,
Multi-Faceted Approach for Training in EU Law and International

Judicial Co-operation.
50
April 2014
Page 225 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 40

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Institute
Type of practice
Key features
April 2014
40
THEMIS
EUROPEAN JUDICIAL TRAINING NETWORK (EJTN)
BEST PRACTICE
The THEMIS competition was created by NIM Romania and CEJ

Portugal in 2006 and was absorbed in the EJTN framework in 2010.
It is aimed at judges and public prosecutors trainees, grouped in
national teams of three people. A person is considered to be a
trainee if he or she is so regarded under its national law and if he or
she has not attended initial training activities for more than two
years. Any country where the concept of trainee does not exist may
participate with a team composed of magistrates (judges and/or
public prosecutors) who, at the date of the beginning of the
competition, are in their first year of service, such year commencing
with the date when they first took up their appointment as a judge
or public prosecutor, irrespective of whether or not they are in the
same employment at the time. The current format of the
competition is as follows:
THEMIS comprises 2 different stages: the semi-finals and a Grand
Final. The 4 semi-final stages allow a maximum of 11 teams each,
with the winners and runners-up of each category competing in the
Grand Final.
When registering for the semi-finals, participant teams select a topic
that falls under one of the four thematic categories of the
competition. Each one of the four semi-finals addresses one of the
categories. These are: a) International Co-operation in Criminal
Matters; b) International Judicial Co-operation in Civil Matters; c)
Interpretation and Application of Articles 5 or 6 of the ECHR and d)
Magistrates Ethics and Deontology.
Each team prepares a written paper on any subject that falls within
the category selected for their semi-final. This is sent to all jurors (3
per topic) with the necessary anticipation.
During the semi-final, each participating team has a maximum of
thirty minutes to make an oral presentation of its paper. This
presentation involves all team members and any audio-visual
technology may be used.
Immediately after this presentation, another participant team
(chosen randomly) is entitled to ask three questions to the
presenting team. After these answers, the jury starts a discussion
with the team about the contents of the paper and the oral
presentation, lasting another 30 minutes. Each team member must
play a broadly equal part in the discussion.
Page 226 of 247

In each of the semi-finals, the jury selects a team as category
winner and another as a category runner-up. Both teams selected in
this way will move on to the Grand Final, which comprises eight
teams in total.
The Jury of the Grand Final is composed of 5 jurors and the thematic
category to be addressed during the event is chosen randomly from
the four indicated above.
During the final, each finalist is asked to prepare a written report on
a common legal practical question that is given to them, by the jury,
immediately after the opening ceremony of the grand final. This
written report must be finished and delivered to THEMIS organisers
by a given deadline.
Each team is required to take part in a debate, in front of the Jury,
with another participant team where each is asked to take opposite
stances on a given case study or topic. This is provided to them two
weeks before the final. Each pair of teams will debate a different
case.
At the end of each working day and according to the timetable set
by the organisers, every team prepares and hands to the jury an
observation file concerning each of the debates in which the team
has not participated during that day. This file should contain
constructive feedback, the teams opinion on the approach taken by
the debating teams and any other constructive comments they wish
to make.
The Jury assesses the participants overall performance in the
written report, the debate and the observation files according to the
following criteria (where appropriate):
Originality
Reference to the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of
the European Union and of the European Court of Human
Rights
European Union standards in the field of ethics and
deontology of judges and prosecutors
In-depth analysis of the latest European debates on both
ethics and EU Law
Anticipation of future solutions
Critical thinking
Communication skills
Clarity, attractiveness and persuasiveness of oral skills and
consistency.
The Jury then declares one of the competing teams to be the
THEMIS winner.
The project aims to develop abilities related to the future profession
of the participants, such as communication skills, debating abilities,
critical and analytical thinking, logical reasoning and proper legal
writing.
The event also aims to further develop the professional contacts,
experiences and relationships between entry-level trainees and their
-
April 2014
Page 227 of 247

teaching staff. The event gives a unique opportunity to trainees to
discuss their own ideas on the chosen subjects with well-known
experts in an international forum.
Available direct
internet link
Institution
contact details
http://www.ejtn.eu/en/About/THEMIS11/
Rue du Commerce 123
1000 Brussels
Belgium
Phone: + 32 2 280 22 42
Fax: + 32 2 280 22 36
Email: ejtn@ejtn.eu
Other comments The model of the semi-final, as described above, has remained
practically unchanged since its creation. In the end it consists of a

seminar constructed in reverse.
In this case, it is up to the participants to select and present the
subjects they want to deal with (although these must be chosen
from a restricted number of generic pre-selected ones), while it is up
to the experts (the jurors) to lead the follow-up discussion
highlighting the main elements of the presentation.
This BEST PRACTICE is ideally transferable to national level either
in the form of a national pre-competition related to the EJTN THEMIS
competition (national heats) or may be applied to any other area of
training where the trainees presentation and argumentation skills
need to be developed.
April 2014
Page 228 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 41

Fact Sheet
41
number
Title of practice Criminal Justice I International Judicial Cooperation in
Criminal Matters EAW and MLA Simulations
Category of
practice
Institute
EUROPEAN JUDICIAL TRAINING NETWORK (EJTN)
Key features
The EJTN Project Criminal Justice I - International Judicial Co-
operation in Criminal Matters -European Arrest Warrants and MLA

(Mutual Legal Assistance) simulations was initially conceived by the
Centre for Judiciary Studies from Portugal and consists of a series of
training seminars, each involving two or three different EU countries.
These seminars aim to recreate as accurately as possible a realistic
environment of judicial co-operation in criminal matters between the
participating Member States, counting on the presence of EUROJUST
and EJN (European Judicial Network) representatives.
In the first stage, participants are gathered in national groups in
order to examine the progress of cases based upon actual or fictional
facts, each one of them suggesting the use of judicial co-operation
legal tools. They are then asked to issue international requests for
co-operation to the other countries participating in the seminar that
they would regard as appropriate; this is done by filling in the
relevant forms (normally, European Arrest Warrants, Letters
Rogatory, mutual recognition certificates etc.).
In the second stage, still in national groups, participants examine
the requests made by the other national groups in the seminar
which were addressed to their country. They are requested to
produce, in relation to each of them, a decision according to the
applicable EU and national laws.
In the third stage, participants merge into internationally mixed
groups to explain and understand the grounds for the national
decisions made on the international requests initially issued. They
are also informed of any unusual aspects in relation to the execution
of those requests in the other Member States. This sometimes takes
place simultaneously in two different Member States, via videoconferencing.
Finally, on the basis of the answers provided (in national groups
again), participants are asked to find the best solution for their own
cases.
The course is rounded off by two lectures on related issues.
This training model serves the following main purposes: it assists
participants in drafting and executing international co-operation
requests on EAW, MR Freezing orders or common MLAs demands; in
how to apply and use EJN and EUROJUST (while simulating their
April 2014
Page 229 of 247

roles); provides them the theoretical background to the requests
and, finally, it provides them with an international forum for
discussion on the above related issues.
Available direct
internet link
Institution
contact details
http://www.ejtn.eu/en/About/Criminal-Justice-Project/
Rue du Commerce 16 B
1000 Brussels
Belgium
Phone: + 32 2 280 22 42
Fax: + 32 2 280 22 36
Email: ejtn@ejtn.eu
Other comments The mechanism undoubtedly consists of a BEST PRACTICE,

although it may only apply in an international environment.
April 2014
Page 230 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 42

Fact Sheet
42
number
Title of practice Learning by doing while Increasing Knowledge of Judicial
Co-operation and the Domestic Law of other EU Member
States
Category of
practice
Country
GERMANY
Key features
In 2012, Germanys Judicial Academy and the Justice Academy of
Turkey jointly organised a one-week seminar on domestic violence

for 25 German and 18 Turkish criminal and family judges as well as
public prosecutors.
The seminar was focused on two fictitious cross-border cases of
domestic violence. The seminar's presentations were exclusively
delivered by the attendees themselves. These lasted a maximum of
30 minutes and focused on the basic principles of the applicable
respective domestic laws in the field and on the most important
national rules on mutual legal assistance in family and in criminal
matters. After these presentations, a considerable amount of time
was given for discussion.
During the seminar, four mock trials took place: one in a Turkish
family court, one in a German family court, one in a Turkish criminal
court and one in a German criminal court. All roles in the mock trials
were played by the attendees of the seminar. The trials were based
on briefs, bills of indictment, etc. which had been prepared
beforehand by the attendees and communicated to the other
nations attendees.
In feedback on the event, participants were unanimous that they
had learned more about each countrys judicial system and legal
culture than they would have done in three weeks of theoretical
lectures. And all the actors in the mock trials said that it had been
great fun.
Institution
contact details

Berliner Allee 7
D-54295 Trier, Germany
Phone: + 49 65 1 93 61 119
Fax: + 49 65 1 30 02 10
Brandenburg)
Am Schloss 1,
April 2014
Page 231 of 247

Phone: + 49 33 92 5 8 97 333
Fax: + 49 33 92 5 8 97 202
Other comments Although applied between an EU country and a non-EU country this
PROMISING PRACTICE can be perfectly adapted to the EU
environment. It is also easily transferable and the variants and

subjects that may be targeted in such seminars are endless.
However, the authors have drawn attention to the fact that
organising such an event obviously requires a considerably higher
investment in staff and logistics than a classical seminar.
In addition, they remarked that its success also depends on the
selection of motivated participants.
April 2014
Page 232 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 43

Fact Sheet
43
number
Title of practice Development of EU Law Training Materials at the PanEuropean Level for Subsequent Incorporation at the National
Level
Category of
practice
Institute
Type of
GOOD PRACTICE
practice
Key features
ERA has been developing two sets of stand-alone training modules:
on EU legislative instruments for cross-border co-operation in civil

matters and on EU environmental law.
The methodology was devised by the European Commission and ERA
took part in its implementation, all fully funded by the EU. In 2013, in
co-operation with other EJTN members, ERA applied for an action
grant for a project with a similar methodology on civil justice
instruments.
The training modules are structured as a training package to be
published and made available for future use by any training institution
interested in the provision of judicial training in these areas of
European law.
The training modules on civil law topics consist of a trainers pack
with information and guidelines on how to organise a workshop to
implement the module, a proposed workshop programme and
recommendations on methodology, an introductory e-Learning
course, a list of background materials for the training recipients,
examples of former trainers PowerPoint presentations, case studies
with their suggested solutions as well as a national section providing
information on legislation, jurisprudence and representative
publications on the application of European family law in 26 Member
States.
Each training module may be implemented through workshops with a
suggested duration of 2.5 days. These face-to-face presentations are
combined with practical exercises and interactive sessions possibly ITsupported.
In order to offer existing training modules in the EU official
languages, a translation company was engaged. This company
required two months to finalise the versions of the training materials
and set up of the e-Learning courses.
A similar organisation has been arranged for the training module
project on EU environmental law.
In 2013, for the implementation of a new project on EU civil justice
law, ERA secured the partnership of national judicial actors from eight
Member States and received an EU grant. Furthermore, 9 external
April 2014
Page 233 of 247

experts were engaged for the development of the training materials,
to be more specific, the materials that will be used for the workshop
exercises and the contents of the e-Learning courses. 34 national
experts will be involved in the preparation of each training module
pertaining to each national section.
In order to assess the efficiency of the materials, ERA has planned to
organise 10 implementation workshops during a nine-month period;
to test the two modules in different contexts (pan-European and
regional); to apply various language regimes and target different
groups (judges and/or lawyers in private practice).
Available direct https://www.erainternet link

comm.eu/EU_Civil_Justice_Training_Modules/index_.html
https://www.era.int/cgibin/cms?_SID=e2757a345521a62f1e434f7307f1841c1894d26d00277
219702342&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel
=124138

Institution
Allee 4
contact details Metzer
D-54295 Trier
Germany
Phone: + 49 651 93737-0
Fax: + 49 651 93737-773
Website: https://www.era.int
Other
comments
April 2014
These two projects on EU civil justice and environmental law have

been developed and financed under a framework contract with the
European Commissions DG JUST and DG ENV. They enabled cooperation with high-level experts on the production of materials, the
creation of online tools such as the e-Learning course and the
national sections and the translation of the training material into more
languages. Without this financial support, it would not be possible to
proceed with the development of further training modules.
The crucial elements for the success of this practice are the
comprehensiveness and flexibility of the training materials produced.
Although they are not tailored to the specific needs of a certain group
of judges, the training modules contain a variety of elements that
support training providers, ranging from ready-to-use case studies to
recommendations on methodology and proposals on the programme
for the workshops.
The training modules are meant for continuous training. In this form,
the practice has limited transferability only at the pan-European
level. However, where appropriate, judicial training institutions could
adopt the idea of producing trainers packs at national level for
training at local or regional level.
It constitutes a GOOD PRACTICE but due to its wide scope, it may
only be put into place either by a European training stakeholder or by
a consortium of national training centres.
Page 234 of 247

This requirement also emphasises a most desirable decentralised
planning of training activities that gathers the best expertise provided
by a large number of Member States, in order to assure its European
added value.
April 2014
Page 235 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 44

Fact Sheet
44
number
Title of practice Ensuring Visibility of EU Law Content in Domestic Law
Courses
Category of
practice
Country
THE NETHERLANDS
Key features
In the Netherlands the Dutch Training and Study Centre for the
Judiciary (SSR) integrates European law as much as possible into its

regular courses on (national) law topics.
This approach raises the awareness of Dutch judges and prosecutors
of the fact that European law is national law. However, the inclusion
of European law in national law courses made European law
somewhat invisible.
Therefore, in order to indicate that European law forms part of a
certain course, in SSRs digital course catalogue, an EU flag is
included at the top of the course description.
As a result of this practice, the visibility of European law in the
curriculum of SSR has increased. Moreover, it also has increased
awareness amongst SSR course managers that wherever
appropriate, European law has to be included in the courses they
develop and revise.
Institution
contact details

3502 JA Utrecht
3527 WX Utrecht
Phone: + 31 88 361 3212
Other comments This GOOD PRACTICE is extremely easy to adopt and its
transferability makes it highly recommended.

According to the SSR experience, the introduction of the practice
was fairly simple, although its material implementation was more
difficult and time-consuming.
In order to implement it, for all continuous education courses the
SSR course managers and their (external) pool of trainers had to
assess the extent to which European law formed a part.
In 2011 the amount of courses in continuous education was 531, so
it has taken substantial time and effort to make the necessary
assessments, in particular for the courses where the inclusion of
European law was not so obvious.
April 2014
Page 236 of 247

At times there was some doubt as to whether a flag should be
placed in the course description, as it could be argued that almost all
national law is influenced to a larger or smaller extent by European
law. That has caused some resistance but also stimulated some
interesting discussions on the specific relations between national law
and European law.
April 2014
Page 237 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 45

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
45
Institution
contact details

Avenue Louise 54
1050 Brussels
Belgium
Phone.: + 32 2 518 49 49
Fax: + 32 2 518 49 79
The Rapporteur
Assessment of Participants Performance in Training and the
Effect of the Training Activities
BELGIUM
BEST PRACTICE
In Belgium a rapporteur is appointed amongst the participants
especially in long (several day) training sessions with several
presenters/trainers and a large number of participants.
The task of the rapporteur is to summarise participants opinions on
the content and quality of the training session and to prepare a draft
report.
At the end of the training session the draft report is submitted to the
participants for approval and then sent to the Judicial Training
Institute.
Other comments The described method performs level 1 of the Kirkpatrick training
evaluation model. It also enables the receipt of real time
summarised feedback information from participants about the
quality of the training, along with suggestions on how to improve it.
It may be considered a BEST PRACTICE that other training
institutions may like to follow in conjunction with their own training
evaluation schemes.
April 2014
Page 238 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 46

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
46
Institution
contact details

3502 JA Utrecht
3527 WX Utrecht
Phone: + 31 88 361 3212
Show What you have Learned

THE NETHERLANDS
PROMISING PRACTICE
In the Netherlands participants in a two-year high-level leadership
programme were required to make a final presentation at the end of

the training programme.
In this presentation they were required to illustrate and
demonstrate what they learned during the course, enabling them to
reflect and make a self-assessment on whether they had achieved
the learning goals. Furthermore, it also inspired them to go beyond
a dry and factual presentation of what they did during the training
thus transforming the presentation as a final assignment into a
kind of policy seminar for the Council of the Judiciary on leadership
issues.
In addition, the presentation of certificates of achievement was
made by the participants themselves accompanied by a short speech
about the performance and progress of another colleague.
This method made it possible to assess and demonstrate the
increased knowledge and skills of the participants.
Other comments The described method performs Level 2 of Kirkpatricks training
evaluation model. Since it is a rather recent evaluation system and

has only been applied once, in a particular training activity, it should
be rated as a PROMISING PRACTICE.
However, the idea may constitute a source of inspiration for
evaluating the training provided to judges and prosecutors working
in higher level courts.
April 2014
Page 239 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 47

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Country
Type of practice
Key features
47
Institution
contact details

Berliner Allee 7
D-54295 Trier, Germany
Phone: + 49 65 1 93 61 119
Fax: + 49 65 1 30 02 10
Long-term Assessment of Training Activities

GERMANY
PROMISING PRACTICE
In Germany, some German States have developed specific
questionnaires to assess long-term learning success e.g. the

positive results of training on the attendees professional skills and
its consequences on the functioning of their court or prosecutor
service.
Applied to modular training courses, this practice anticipates that
during the second module participants are asked some very specific
questions on the long-lasting effect of the competences developed
during the first module which was held some months before
regarding: a) long-term learning success, b) any changes in the
professional behaviour of the participants and c) a possible positive
result these changes might have had for the respective courts or
prosecution offices.
A comparable scheme is currently under consideration for
implementation in seminars or a series of seminars at national level.

Brandenburg)
Am Schloss 1
Phone: + 49 33 92 5 8 97 333
Fax: + 49 33 92 5 8 97 202
Other comments The practice described complements other standard tools and
methods currently in use (and refers to Levels 1 and 2 of

Kirkpatricks training evaluation model). The mechanism above
generally covers Kirkpatricks Levels 3 and 4. It seems to have been
successfully implemented in several German States and is about to
April 2014
Page 240 of 247

be expanded to full national level.
It is considered to be a PROMISING PRACTICE. It has good
transferability and is highly recommended whenever training is
delivered in several modules at relatively long intervals.
April 2014
Page 241 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 48

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Institute
Type of practice
Key features
48
Evaluation and Impact Assessment System
BEST PRACTICE
ERA uses this mechanism as part of the evaluation51 and impact
assessment system for training workshops that implement training

modules in the area of EU family law for the European Commission.
In order to assess if the implemented workshops were developed
efficiently, a twofold process has been introduced:
Immediately after the end of the workshop, all participants are
asked to complete a detailed evaluation questionnaire, aimed at the
quality of the workshop itself. Questions on the seminar content and
methodology, the training materials provided and the quality of the
trainers contributions are also included in these evaluation forms.
In addition to this immediate feedback, a mid-term evaluation
process involving an assessment of the results and impact of the
workshop in the longer term is also sent to participants. With a
reminder by the workshop organiser before the end of the workshop
and a small souvenir as a thank you for filling in the initial
evaluation form, it was possible to collect the replies from
approximately 90% of participants. The feedback received through
the mid-term evaluation forms was lower, about 50%, but
nevertheless indicative of the impact of the workshop.

Metzer Allee 4
D-54295 Trier
Germany
Phone: + 49 651 93737-0
Fax: + 49 651 93737-773
Website: https://www.era.int
Other comments The combined evaluation method described performs levels 1, 2 and
3 of Kirkpatricks training evaluation model.
In conjunction with Fact Sheet No.8, it also represents a good
example of the inter-connection between training needs assessment
and evaluation of training and can be considered as a BEST
PRACTICE whose transferability is recommended.
Institution
contact details
51
See Fact Sheet No. 8 for the training needs assessment part of this practice.
April 2014
Page 242 of 247

Fact Sheet No. 49

Fact Sheet
number
Title of practice
Category of
practice
Institute
Type of practice
Key features
49
Institution
contact details

1347, Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Phone: + 352 426 230-1
Fax: + 352 426 237
EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (EIPA)
BEST PRACTICE
For EIPA the objective of this post-training evaluation is three-fold.
It sets out to simultaneously assess:

The extent to which participants had the opportunity to use
the
knowledge/know-how acquired during the training event
The extent to which the acquired knowledge/know-how
helped them to perform their daily work more efficiently
Whether the training event attended could be improved.
This post-training evaluation normally takes place two-to-four
months after the training event and is mostly carried out via a webbased survey tool. In case the number of answers obtained this way
remains below the required standard, telephone interviews are used
in order to achieve more in-depth feedback.
In addition to its main goal to control and improve the quality of
training this method is also used to identify current and potential
future training needs and develop new training services.
Other comments The above system completes the mechanism described under
Training Needs Assessment and has been introduced as a posttraining evaluation practice.
It performs Level 3 of Kirkpatricks training evaluation model. It is
also a good52example of the inter-connection between training needs
assessment and training evaluation. It can be considered as a
BEST PRACTICE and transferability is recommended.
52
See Fact Sheet No. 9.
April 2014
Page 243 of 247

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:
one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
more than one copy or posters/maps:
from the European Unions representations
(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service
(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels
may charge you).
Priced publications:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions:
via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
April 2014
Page 244 of 247
D
S
0
2
1
4
9
0
4
E
N
N
Doi: 10.2838/31516

European Judicial Training Best Practices in Training 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Judicial Training Best Practices in Training 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tender JUST/2012/JUTR/PR/0064/A4

Implementation of the Pilot

Funded by the European Union

Implementation of the Pilot Project European Judicial Training - Lot 1

Funded by the European Union

Directorate-General for Directorate General for Justice

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

European Union, 2014

Implementation of the Pilot Project European Judicial Training - Lot 1

Methodology of the study................................................................................. 7

Mthodologie de ltude ................................................................................. 10

Part one ................................................................................... 13

Chapter one: background to report

1.1. Background ........................................................................................... 13

4.3 Specific sources and methods for TNA........................................................ 32

Chapter five: innovative curricula or training plan in any given area

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 42

Chapter six: innovative training methodology

6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 67

Implementation of the Pilot Project European Judicial Training - Lot 1

Chapter seven: implementation of training tools to favour the correct

7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 87

Chapter eight: assessment of participants performance in training and

8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 104

Part two ................................................................................. 111

Chapter nine: general conclusions and recommendations

9.1 Conclusions and recommendations under deliverable 3 ............................... 111

Part three............................................................................... 117

9.2 Recommendations under deliverable 4 ...................................................... 117

Part four ................................................................................ 119

9.3 Recommendations under deliverable 5 ...................................................... 119

Part five ................................................................................. 121

Annexe one: questionnaire

Implementation of the Pilot Project European Judicial Training - Lot 1

Cycle Approfondi dEtudes Judiciare

Consultative Council of European Judges

Centro de Estudios Jurdicos Centre for Legal Studies

Chief Executive Officer

Consejo General del Poder Judicial Spanish Judicial School

Case Management System

Court Practice Analysis

Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura High Council for the

Directorate General Justice

European Arrest Warrant

European Court of Human Rights

European Court of Justice

European Institute of Public Administration / Institut Europen

European Judicial Network

European Judicial Training Network / Rseau Europen de

Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature / National School for the

Europische Rechtsakademie / Academy of European Law /

European Union / Union Europenne

The European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit

Implementation of the Pilot Project European Judicial Training - Lot 1

LInstitut de Formation Judiciaire / Instituut voor Gerechtelijke

Judicial Office Holders

Judicial Training Institute Belgium

Gerechtscoordinator Europees Recht / Court Coordinator

German Judicial Academy

Krajowa Szkoa Sdownictwa i Prokuratury / National School of

Leadership and Management Developement

Leadership and Management Judges

Mental Health Tribunal

Mutual Legal Assistance